canada.com » Michael Fergusonhttp://o.canada.com
Canada's great, shareable storiesTue, 31 Mar 2015 21:58:56 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/15edae77ebfa450ee5bb897103fdef31?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.png » Michael Fergusonhttp://o.canada.com
Den Tandt: Canadian veterans deserve betterhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/den-tandt-canadian-veterans-deserve-better
http://o.canada.com/news/national/den-tandt-canadian-veterans-deserve-better#commentsTue, 25 Nov 2014 22:25:56 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=551032]]>OTTAWA — The Conservative party has made patriotism and support for the military central to its brand. That makes its ramshackle, shoddy and unacceptable treatment of Canadian veterans, revealed in auditor general Michael Ferguson’s fall report, all the more egregious. It is simply not good enough. And the customary official excuses and genuflections and blathering, in ample evidence Tuesday, only add insult to injury.

It is not good enough to declare, as Defence Minister Rob Nicholson did while fending of questions that should rightly have been fielded by Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino, that Ferguson found slivers of good amid the bad. To hear the minister tell it, both in an early afternoon news conference and in Question Period, veterans are getting most of the help they need, though improvements are of course always welcome. That’s not true. Ferguson’s report says so.

“Overall, we found that Veterans Affairs Canada is not adequately facilitating timely access to mental health services,” the audit’s preamble states. “Canada has put in place important health supports for veterans, and the Department is providing timely access to the Rehabilitation Program. However, access to the Disability Benefits Program — the program through which most veterans access mental health services, is slow, and the application process is complex. We found that Veterans Affairs Canada has not analyzed the time it takes, from a veteran’s perspective, to receive a Disability Benefits eligibility decision.”

Elsewhere, the audit states: “Delays in obtaining assessments, whether through Veterans Affairs Canada or National Defence clinics, contribute to delays in the veteran’s application for disability benefits. These delays may jeopardize a veteran’s stabilization and/or recovery.”

Now, connect the dots. The Defence Department’s own data shows that more Canadian soldiers have now died of suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan. The government has had those statistics for months. Yet it was just Sunday — with this audit pending — that the Conservatives announced $200-million in new funding for mental health in the military.

Why did it take an auditor general’s report to prompt this action? One does not require analytical genius to link untreated operational stress injuries, which run the gamut from hyper-awareness to full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder, with the suicide rate. Where was the ministerial fist pounding on the ministerial table, say one or two or three years ago, demanding that no stone be left unturned in speeding access to mental health services for veterans? And where was Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

Photographers work as Auditor general Michael Ferguson speaks during a press conference at the National Press Theatre following the tabling of the 2014 Fall Report of the Auditor General in the House of Commons, Tuesday, November 25, 2014 in Ottawa. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld)

A week ago, The Canadian Press’s Murray Brewster reported that $1.13 billion in unspent money has been returned by Veterans Affairs, to the federal Treasury, since 2006. Consider that for a moment: Throughout the period when the Afghan war was at its height, even as veterans’ groups sound the alarm about their plight, even then, the full budget allocated for them was not spent.

There are two elements, in effect, emerging from this audit: The first is the incompetence and lack of care revealed. The second is the communications bungle, which may be the politically more damaging of the two. For where was the veterans affairs minister, when this emerged? Off in Europe, attending a commemoration of the Italian Campaign in the Second World War.

This is not to denigrate, in any way, the importance of that conflict in Canadian military history; indeed the Italian Campaign is the first modern instance in which Canadian soldiers faced urban combat conditions similar to those they would later encounter in Kandahar.

But history, important though it is, should absolutely not have trumped the problems facing Canadian veterans today. The responsible minister needed to be in Ottawa, front and centre. This post-audit ritual, whereby relevant ministers stand up and take their public caning and pledge fealty to the AG’s recommendations, already has lost much currency, since Sponsorship days. Nicholson, who is not among the cabinet’s strongest performers, was like a deer in the headlights. The news conference was more of a mauling than a Q & A.

Perhaps strangest of all, the Harper government does not seem capable any longer of seeing an issue through the eyes of the average, reasonable, fair-minded citizen. For obvious reasons, veterans are respected and admired by Canadians generally, whereas politicians are not. In a contest of public trust between the two groups, consequently, veterans will always win.

Therefore, even if only for the sheer political optics of it, there needed to be contrition expressed Tuesday; a sense that, based on the simple findings of the audit — the wait times of eight months or more before many veterans even become eligible to seek treatment for chronic mental health injuries sustained in the service of this country — the government has failed them, and is sorry for having done so.

But contrition and humility were nowhere to be found. The spin was all selective and misleading quotations, deflection, dodging, hedging and excuses. Here we are, supposedly, on an election footing: Yet this could scarcely have been botched more thoroughly.

It’s a far cry indeed from the calculating, annoying but efficient Conservative message manipulation of yesteryear. It does not bode well for the government as it gears up for a campaign.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/den-tandt-canadian-veterans-deserve-better/feed1Auditor general veteransmikedentandtAuditor general veteransSoldiers on Viagra part of a list of secrets held by Harper governmenthttp://o.canada.com/news/cabinet-secrets-federal-government-513579
http://o.canada.com/news/cabinet-secrets-federal-government-513579#commentsSun, 14 Sep 2014 19:34:20 +0000http://postmediacanadadotcom.wordpress.com/?p=513579]]>By Murray Brewster

OTTAWA — Sexual dysfunction in the Canadian military is such a sensitive topic for the Harper government that federal officials have stamped all information related to it as a cabinet secret, something not to be revealed to the public.

And there are other subjects the federal Conservatives don’t want to talk about: Why their planned $2-billion purchase of armoured vehicles was cancelled, for instance. Or how Canada feels about the proliferation of chemical weapons. Or what Transport Canada thought about rail safety criticism from the auditor general.

Those are just a few subjects on a growing list of seemingly routine reports, memos and documents caught up in an enhanced dragnet of so-called cabinet confidences — imposed, The Canadian Press has learned, by way of a stealthy Treasury Board directive in the summer of 2013.

That quiet policy change required bureaucrats to ask departmental lawyers to decide what constitutes a secret, a decision that used to be made by the Privy Council Office, which oversees cabinet matters.

PCO — as it’s known — is only asked for guidance in “complex cases only.”

As a result, the government’s blanket of secrecy has grown ever more broad.

The Canadian Press has found dozens of cases from various departments in which reports, briefing materials and emails have been excluded entirely under Section 69 of the Access to Information Act, which gives officials the power to withhold records because they are meant to be seen only by the federal cabinet.

In the case of National Defence, CP was asking for information related to planned cuts in 2012 to the program that provides free Viagra to the military.

There were 61 complaints last year to Suzanne Legault, the country’s information commissioner, about the cabinet confidence clause, almost twice the number in 2012. Figures from the commissioner’s office show it used the exclusion 2,117 times in 2012-13, a 20 per cent increase over the year before.

More recent data won’t be available until end of 2014, Legault told The Canadian Press in an interview.

She is concerned, however, about how wide-ranging the definition of a cabinet secret has become, especially since once the exclusion is declared, not even she can see the documents in question.

“When you look at the scope of the exclusion, it is extremely broad,” Legault said.

“It’s very, very broad. It basically catches anything that mentions a record that’s a cabinet confidence. In my view, the actual scope of this does not respect fundamental tenets of freedom of information.”

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, front centre, poses for a group photo with the federal cabinet announced during a ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Monday, July 15, 2013.

Media outlets aren’t the only ones for whom the flow of information in Ottawa has slowed to a trickle. Watchdog agencies like the auditor general, the military ombudsman and the parliamentary budget officer are also complaining.

Auditor general Michael Ferguson said last spring that his attempts to audit the long-term health of public pension plans had been stymied by bureaucrats at Finance and Treasury Board.

Ferguson said he was “surprised” at the scope of information officials refused to disclose.

Kevin Page, who took the Harper government to federal court when he was parliamentary budget officer, said the law needs a major overhaul.

“Under my time as the budget officer we were told on numerous occasions — from crime bills to elements of the government’s economic forecast to departmental spending restraint plans (post budget 2012) — that Parliament (and the PBO) could not get access to information because it was a cabinet confidence,” Page said.

“The stakes were high. The government was asking Parliament to vote on bills without relevant financial information and were hiding behind the veil of cabinet confidence. This undermined accountability for Parliament and the accountability of the public service.”

MPs and senators, who are subject to parliamentary privilege, have found their formal written inquiries — known as order paper questions — are also being run through the filter of cabinet confidence by the Privy Council Office.

“Cabinet confidence is invoked so often these days, everything is secret including the colour of the minister’s dress on any given day,” said Liberal MP John McKay, who held up several examples of his questions — on both defence and the environment — that have been denied.

“To pry information out of these guys that is actually real, useful and meaningful — so people can make independent judgments — has become an such exercise in frustration as to result in a high level of cynicism even when they are telling the truth.”

The Harper government has long had a reputation for secrecy. But few have explored in any detail just how many avenues of information are being choked off and what the potential consequences might be.

How much of it is political? How much is bureaucratic?

In responding to the auditor general’s complaints last spring, Treasury Board president Tony Clement said the decision to invoke cabinet confidence falls to civil servants, not politicians.

What he didn’t say was that the Harper government has made it easier for bureaucrats to say “no,” thus burying forever their own mistakes and those of the political masters.

“What I think is starting to happen now is the realization that they can basically shut down any democratic debate to anything that could be embarrassing to the government,” said Errol Mendes, a constitutional expert at the University of Ottawa.

“That is the way an authoritarian government behaves.”

A Treasury Board spokeswoman said late Friday that the intention of the policy change was “to streamline administrative processes,” and noted that only 4 per cent of all access to information requests have been subjected to the cabinet exclusion.

Mendes said it really speeds up the process when everything is withheld.

A cabinet confidence is loosely defined as something that has been prepared for — or seen by — the federal cabinet; protecting those secrets is considered a cornerstone of the parliamentary system.

The old procedure, which had been in place since the mid-1980s, saw each department flag information that might be a cabinet secret and then ask the Privy Council Office to review and confirm the decision.

Once the exclusion is invoked, the records remain sealed off from public scrutiny for 20 years.

Under the new system, in which departmental officials and federal lawyers get to decide what constitutes a cabinet confidence, PCO is only consulted in “certain circumstances,” according to an internal memo dated June 26, 2013, and obtained by CP.

The exclusion of the Privy Council Office, which would know for certain what information cabinet has and has not seen, is outrageous, said Mendes, who worked in that office under Paul Martin’s Liberals.

Oddly enough, the Conservatives promised in their 2006 election platform to give the information commissioner the power to see the excluded documents, as opposed to receiving a summary report of the justification for the decision.

But that was back when former auditor general Sheila Fraser was being stymied through cabinet confidence declarations in her efforts to investigate the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

Conservatives, at the time, deemed the obstruction so egregious that after being elected they ordered the bureaucracy to release the documents to the auditor, according to former Tory insiders.

12:17ET 14-09-14

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/cabinet-secrets-federal-government-513579/feed0CABINETthecanadianpressCanadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, front centre, poses for a group photo with the federal cabinet announced during a ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Monday, July 15, 2013.Defence Department hamstrung in efforts to convert former U.S. presidential choppershttp://o.canada.com/news/national/defence-department-hamstrung-in-efforts-to-convert-former-u-s-presidential-choppers
http://o.canada.com/news/national/defence-department-hamstrung-in-efforts-to-convert-former-u-s-presidential-choppers#commentsFri, 04 Jul 2014 23:46:01 +0000http://postmediacanadadotcom.wordpress.com/?p=479504]]>OTTAWA — Converting U.S. President Barack Obama’s surplus fleet of helicopters for use in Canadian search-and-rescue would be a complicated process that would break promises National Defence made to acquire the aircraft in the first place, newly released documents show.

Former defence minister Peter MacKay ordered the air force last year to re-examine whether any of the brand-new VH-71 helicopters, purchased to supply spare parts for Canada’s Cormorant choppers, could be made operational.

He was at the time dealing with the fallout from an auditor general’s report, which tore a strip off the Harper government over the state of the search-and-rescue system.

Documents show that even though MacKay became justice minister last year, he continued to champion the conversion idea, raising it with his successor Rob Nicholson last fall.

The notion appears set to die a slow, quiet death even though Michael Ferguson’s spring 2013 report raised concern that some of the current helicopters also being used for rescue — namely the CH-146 Griffons — were unsuitable.

A briefing note prepared for Nicholson, dated Dec. 12, 2013 and obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information legislation, shows that converting the VH-71s for operational service would violate a written National Defence pledge that they would only be used for spares.

“I wish to be quite clear that the purpose of this action is to take advantage of a unique situation to procure a package of spares and assembled spares (airframes which were left in varying states of assembly) to support the existing Cormorant Search and Rescue fleet; it is not to procure flyable assets,” wrote Dan Ross, the former head of defence purchasing, on Dec. 21, 2010.

On that basis the $168-million deal was approved with the U.S. government, which wanted to off-load the choppers from its cancelled program meant to upgrade the presidential fleet.

The acquisition was considered a “non-project” and therefore exempt from the kind of paper trail and preparatory work that goes into buying full-fledged helicopters.

Going back on the deal could create the kind of procurement headache the government recently extracted itself from with the F-35. That politically-charged file saw defence and public works accused by the auditor general of not doing their homework and having a thin paper trail between the departments.

Although the air force appeared cool to MacKay’s suggestion, it did conduct an assessment of the feasibility of bringing some of the nine airframes into service and has not completely ditched the idea.

Spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in a recent email that more “detailed studies are required to determine whether to incorporate this potential capability into the RCAF (search and rescue) rotory-wing fleet.”

Some of the technical obstacles they face include the fact that the airframes are uncertified and don’t have valid airworthiness certificates.

The briefing to Nicholson says the use of the VH-71s for spares has been an unqualified success and is estimated will save taxpayers $24-million over the long-term when compared with having to buy the parts on the open market.

OTTAWA – Public service pension plans are facing a $152-billion liability that could increase with the risk of prolonged low interest rates and employees living longer in retirement, says Canada’s auditor general.

In his Spring report Tuesday, Michael Ferguson said the government must ensure the three defined benefit plans for Canada’s public servants, military and RCMP are “appropriately designed” to manage risks that could affect their long-term affordability and “sustainability.”

The plans guarantee employees fixed pension incomes upon retirement – so any shortfall will leave taxpayers on the hook.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement said he backs Ferguson’s proposals to improve the monitoring and reporting on the plans, but added the government is not planning any further changes to pensions as it gears up for negotiations with 17 federal unions to replace the existing sick-leave regime with a new short-term disability plan.

“I’ve also indicated, so I’m not veering away from that, I’ve indicated over the next round of collective bargaining that for the next three years, the focus is going to be on sick leave and absenteeism, not on further pension reforms, and I feel comfortable that that’s the right thing to do,” Clement told reporters.

In his report, Ferguson said the biggest risks are prolonged low interest rates, lower than expected returns on assets and the increased longevity of public servants, which his report said “could have a significant impact on pension liabilities and the financial position of government.”

“The government has a statutory obligation to pay pensioners and is fully responsible for any funding deficit,” Ferguson said. “In this context, it would be reasonable to expect that the plans be designed to ensure they are sustainable and affordable.”

Public servants are working fewer years and living longer in retirement on their pensions – in fact, about 27 years longer – than when the plans were created more than 40 years ago. The report found that a further increase in life expectancy over time, of between one to three years, could boost the plans’ actuarial obligations by between $4.2 billion and $11.7 billion.

At the same time, the plan has faced the volatility of the market since the 2008 financial crisis and low interest rates, increasing the cost of pension obligations.

The plans have a major impact on Canada’s debt and deficit. The three plans have liabilities totalling $152 billion, the second-biggest liability after Canada’s market debt.

Ferguson examined the plans over the past three years when they faced an unexpected $6.5-billion increase in liability that forced the government to pump in $1 billion in special payments.

“There are other factors that can equally have those types of impacts. So … the pension expense can change significantly when any of these factors change. And when they change, it does – it’s something that has to be taken seriously when they’re putting budgets together,” he said.

Ferguson found the key players in overseeing the plans – Treasury Board Secretariat, RCMP, National Defence and Finance Canada – followed the rules and fulfilled their expected responsibilities, but he noted that no one was ultimately responsible for whether the plans were “sustainable.”

“Think about a brand new employee in the government starting today at, say, 22 years old; they want to know that pension plan’s going to be around for, let’s say, 70 years. So it’s very important that somebody have that responsibility,” said Ferguson.

He said the government should also have a “funding policy” for the three plans that lays out its appetite for risk to guide the Pension Sector Investment Board in managing the plans’ investments.

Although Ferguson’s report urges the government to examine the plans’ design, he makes no recommendations on whether the plans should be changed.

The Conservatives recently put pension reform back on the national agenda with a proposal for “target benefit” pension plans for Canada’s Crown corporations and federally regulated industries. Public service pensions are specifically excluded from the proposal, but many fear the move opens the door to shifting public service pensions to target benefit plans down the road.

Clement argued he has already “acted prudently and forthrightly” to address risks Ferguson raised with his pension reforms in 2012 that increased contribution rates for public servants and raised the retirement age to 65 for new hires from age 60. He said that move saved $2.6 billion by 2018 and an ongoing $900 million a year.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-government-should-re-examine-design-of-pension-plans-to-ensure-sustainability/feed1commons_20130612_topix1maymkAuditor general: Relocation contract a messhttp://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-relocation-contract-a-mess
http://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-relocation-contract-a-mess#commentsTue, 06 May 2014 20:38:24 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=441649]]>OTTAWA – A series of missteps during Public Works and Government Services’ 2009 contracting process for a $300-million annual contract to relocate federal employees ended up shutting out all competition except the company that had won the deal since 1999, concluded the auditor-general.

In his latest report, Auditor General Michael Ferguson criticized some of the decisions and actions taken by Public Works officials, which “cumulatively” caused delays and barriers that stopped would-be suppliers – other than incumbent Royal LePage Relocation Services (RLRS) – from bidding on the 2009 contract.

Ferguson’s report stopped short of calling the contract unfair, though his predecessor, Sheila Fraser, did so when she examined the 2004 relocation contract process. She concluded the process was stacked in the favour of RLRS.

Her report sparked a major lawsuit and an Ontario Superior Court judge has since concluded bureaucrats rigged the 2004 process to favour RLRS. The court ordered the government to pay an unprecedented $40 million to the losing bidder, Envoy Relocation Services.

“Decisions and actions by officials were reactive and taken cumulatively did not facilitate access and encourage competition, which resulted in limiting the response to one service provider,” Ferguson wrote. “We found no evidence to suggest that this was done intentionally.”

Ferguson’s report Tuesday on the 2009 contract is the latest chapter in one of the longest and most complicated procurement disputes in decades.

The government is the country’s biggest mover, relocating up to 20,000 military, RCMP and public servants to new postings across the country. Most of the moves are military personnel.

The Conservative government decided not to cancel the 2004 contract after Fraser’s report; instead it promised to re-tender it upon expiry in 2009.

The new 2009 contract was supposed to fix all the contracting problems that derailed the 2004 version. But it quickly ran into delays and problems when prospective bidders complained about impossibly tight deadlines that favoured RLRS – now known as Brookfield Global Relocation Services.

Ferguson noted one problem was that the procurement plan that acts as a guide for the contracting process was only approved three weeks after the RFP was issued.

He also found that the decision to issue one contract proved a roadblock to competition. The Office for Small and Medium Sized Business had suggested breaking up the contract into separate deals for the military, RCMP and public service so that smaller firms had a shot.

Government officials knew there would probably be little domestic competition but thought they could attract some international firms. However, Ferguson noted officials knew the contract’s security and privacy requirements would deter international firms – which would have to house databases of employees being transferred in Canada.

Another big problem was time. The major deadlines for unrolling the project were missed and the RFP was issued seven month late. The report said bureaucrats knew the delay created tight timelines that would rule out companies from bidding. With the late RFP, the six months’ ramp-up the industry expected for a new supplier to be up and running was reduced to three months.

The RFP tried to open up competition among smaller firms by throwing it open to firms that handled 500 relocations – but then turned around and demanded experience in handling much larger volumes, which left smaller firms out of the running.

The RFP’s requirement that the winning bidder would have to take on 20,000 existing files also proved an obstacle to other bidders. The audit found no evidence to back the 20,000 estimate. In the end, only 7,000 files were transferred.

Incorrect business volumes were at the heart of the 2004 contract that favoured RLRS. This time, departments were supposed verify the expected volumes but Defence and Treasury Board were unable to show how they did this.

Public Works Minister Diane Finley acknowledged the importance of encouraging competition and removing possible barriers. She said the department is examining this as it readies for the next contract. The 2009 contract expires in December.

]]>

http://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-relocation-contract-a-mess/feed0Sheila FrasermaymkAuditor general: Overcrowding in prisons could worsen in long termhttp://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-overcrowding-in-prisons-could-worsen-in-long-term
http://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-overcrowding-in-prisons-could-worsen-in-long-term#commentsMon, 05 May 2014 20:20:27 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=440893]]>OTTAWA — The federal government was unapologetic Tuesday over a auditor general’s report that said prisons are so jam-packed, many inmates are forced to “double-bunk” in shared cells — even though this breeds violence and poses a risk to offenders and staff alike.

Although recent construction will resolve the over-crowding in the “short-term,” Correctional Service Canada (CSC) has failed to develop expansion plans for its penitentiaries to properly take into account the growing number of inmates, according to a report released Tuesday by Auditor General Michael Ferguson.

Within hours of the report’s release, the Official Opposition was blasting the Conservative government for bungling its expansion of the prison system by failing to add additional cells in penitentiaries where they are needed the most.

But Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said the government takes its responsibilities “very seriously.”

“The very first priority for Correctional Services is to keep criminals behind bars and be cognizant of Canadians’ public safety as well as the safety of those who are managing inmates,” Blaney told reporters.

“Correctional Services is in a good position to face up to this slight increase that has been forcecast for our prisoner population.”

New Democrat MP Malcolm Allen said the government’s handling of the issue shows it had no long-term plan for prisons and had only been filling in “gaps.”

“This is about the ability of this government to manage appropriately. They said they would build cells, not to double bunk, but to actually put people in individual bunks. And they still got it wrong.”

Double-bunking is, according to government policy, supposed to be a temporary measure. But it has grown and appears to have become a permanent fixture of the system.

Ferguson reported that the CSC policy states double bunking should only occur in approved areas and not exceed 20 per cent of a prison’s population.

“We found that 26 per cent of offenders were being double bunked in the Ontario and Prairie regions in the 2012–13 fiscal year. That same year, we also found that double bunking was occurring in segregation cells and in cells smaller than 5 square meters, which is contrary to the intent of CSC policy. Even after the construction is completed, CSC officials expect double bunking to continue.”

This is occurring, Ferguson found, even though Correctional Services determined in 2009 that it wanted to “minimize” overcrowding in higher security jails.

“At that time, CSC identified serious implications with double bunking, including increased levels of tension, aggression, and violence. It also identified increased safety and security concerns for staff and offenders, especially at maximum and medium security penitentiaries.”

Ferguson’s audit also found that as CSC expanded prisons in recent years, it failed to properly add sufficient segregation cells to isolate some offenders, and add health-care facilities for inmates at the jails.

The prisons are particularly overcrowded in Ontario and the Prairie provinces, while jails in British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces have available space.

That has led to a costly consequence: prisoners are being transferred between facilities. In 2010–11, it cost $1.5 million to move 529 inmates. During the first nine months of 2013, costs had risen to $3.4 million to transfer 908 offenders.

“CSC officials expect that the long-distance relocation of offenders, and the associated costs, will continue after the expansion of facilities is completed,” reported Ferguson.

And although the government boasted its closure of three facilities — the Kingston Penitentiary, a regional treatment centre in Ontario, and the Leclerc Institution in Quebec — would save $120 million annually, the actual savings have been $86 million a year.

In recent years, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government introduced a law-and-order agenda that was expected to increase the inmate population.

In 2012–13, Correctional Services spent about $2 billion on prisons and inmate rehabilitation. This figure has grown by 17 per cent in the past five years, driven in part by a rising offender population. In March 2013, there were 15,224 prisoners in 57 federal penitentiaries across Canada.

In recent years, Correctional Services has been on a construction spree — adding more than 2,700 cells to 37 facilities. When completed in 2015, prison officials expect that “these cells will alleviate much of the overcrowding experienced at the time of our audit,” reported Ferguson.

“We concluded that CSC did not plan the expansions to its penitentiaries in a manner that took into account its accommodation needs in the long term.”

At a news conference, Ferguson said that CSC expanded its prisons in the “most convenient places.” If, for instance, there was land within the existing perimeter of a facility, cells were added there.

“What they ended up doing was expanding eight facilities that were targeted for closure. Also, some of the expansions were in facilities where it appeared the expansion was beyond the capacity of the existing infrastructure.”

mkennedy@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/Mark_Kennedy_

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-overcrowding-in-prisons-could-worsen-in-long-term/feed0MEGA-PRISONSmarkkennedy1Auditor general: Revenue agency not fully able to fight some tax dodgeshttp://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-revenue-agency-not-fully-able-to-fight-some-tax-dodges
http://o.canada.com/news/auditor-general-revenue-agency-not-fully-able-to-fight-some-tax-dodges#commentsMon, 05 May 2014 21:13:37 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=440916]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s federal tax collection agency faces some notable gaps in how it detects and fights “aggressive” tax planning, including on high-risk business files, training of its auditors and monitoring its programs, says the federal auditor general.

In his spring report, Auditor General Michael Ferguson examined whether the Canada Revenue Agency is protecting the federal tax base by first spotting, then cracking down on aggressive tax planning measures used by companies and individuals to avoid paying certain taxes.

The audit between April 2010 and November 2013 found the CRA has an “adequate program in place” to detect, correct and deter aggressive tax planning, but he found significant room for improvement.

The auditor general also ran into a bit of an information brick wall at Finance Canada, which would not release certain information on how the CRA’s requests for legislative changes to block aggressive tax planning were analyzed by the Finance Department.

The CRA has identified aggressive tax planning as one of the highest risks to its mandate for ensuring taxpayer compliance. Taxes are the foundation of the federal government’s revenue base, so failing to collect taxes owed erodes potential funding for programs and services across Canada.

The Canada Revenue Agency defines aggressive tax plans as “arrangements that push the limits of acceptable tax planning,” according to the auditor general’s report.

Participating in aggressive tax planning is not a criminal activity. Tax evasion is “a deliberate contravention of the law,” the audit explains, while tax avoidance could arise from differences in interpretation with “no deceit involved and full disclosure.”

Auditors examined four selected aggressive tax plans with potentially billions of dollars in federal revenues at stake. These included two plans used mainly by large businesses — known as offshore insurance and “tech wrecks” — as well as two other plans called RRSP strips and stock dividend value shift used more by individuals and small businesses.

Offshore insurance sees Canadian businesses “swap” their Canadian insurance portfolios with a foreign portfolio to avoid having some income taxed in Canada. RRSP strips were designed to provide benefits to individuals who withdrew funds tax-free from RRSPs normally locked in.

With stock dividend value shifts, taxpayers who have sold property and received a capital gain create an artificial loss to offset the gain, and tech wrecks sees the tax losses realized by one corporation used to reduce the income of another corporation.

Through its audit, the auditor general discovered:

-The CRA has not fully evaluated whether it is able to detect high-risk large business files.

“The transactions or series of transactions that make up an aggressive tax plan can be very complex, and the CRA often does not have detailed information describing the purpose and result of the transactions,” the audit says.

-While a learning track for auditors is in place, the agency does not track the formal training of auditors working on aggressive tax planning;

“Because of inaccurate employee information and computer system limitations, the Agency was unable to demonstrate that the formal training was provided to (aggressive tax planning) auditors.”

-There are general gaps in how the CRA measures the performance of its aggressive tax planning program.

The CRA has agreed to three recommendations from the auditor general on improving how it detects and corrects non-compliance, and on performance measures for the aggressive tax-planning program.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Michael Ferguson will table his office’s 2014 spring report, which is expected to touch on everything from prisons to public service pensions to First Nations policing.

The report’s release will be followed by a news conference with Treasury Board president Tony Clement, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Public Works Minister Diane Finley and Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

Although recent auditor general reports have been relatively tame, some past audits, such as the one probing the federal sponsorship program, have uncovered startling revelations of federal misspending or misuse of government rules and regulations.

Here are some other events planned for Parliament Hill today:

— The Canadian Psychological Association says there are holes in Canada’s system for psychological services. Association CEO Dr. Karen Cohen and incoming president Dr. Kerry Mothersill will speak about those gaps at a news conference.

— And the CFL’s newest franchise, the Ottawa Redblacks, will unveil their jerseys and uniforms to the media and season-ticket holders.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/today-on-the-hill-ottawa-abuzz-over-auditor-generals-spring-report/feed0Michael FergusonthecanadianpressRecords shed light on why National Household Survey release was postponedhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/records-shed-light-on-why-national-household-survey-release-was-postponed
http://o.canada.com/news/national/records-shed-light-on-why-national-household-survey-release-was-postponed#commentsMon, 05 May 2014 21:13:15 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=440937]]>OTTAWA — With the federal auditor general poised to release an examination of Statistics Canada on Tuesday, internal government documents obtained by the Citizen shed light on last summer’s abrupt postponement of the release of the agency’s National Household Survey.

Michael Ferguson’s spring report will include a chapter on “whether Statistics Canada ensures the quality of key socio-economic information” and efficiently generates it for major releases, such as the National Household Survey, which replaced the mandatory long-form census.

In an unusual move, Statistics Canada abruptly announced on Aug. 12, 2013 — just two days before a scheduled release — that it had postponed for a month the publication of a major set of data from the NHS on income, earnings, housing and shelter costs, because of errors discovered during final checks.

Internal government documents show frantic last-minute discussions within Statistics Canada — as well as with Industry Canada and the Privy Council Office — over the discovery of the mistake, whether to delay the NHS release and how to carefully word the news release about the postponement.

The government was already on the defensive about the NHS. Some statisticians have been critical of the survey as a replacement for the traditional long-form census, because of the NHS’s voluntary nature. The critics have insisted the data didn’t accurately reflect smaller geographic areas or certain groups who tend not to respond as much to voluntary surveys as other groups.

The discovery of a mistake in the NHS was the last thing Statistics Canada needed.

However, in the late afternoon of Saturday, Aug. 10, 2013, an analyst in the Income Statistics Division approached Alison Hale, a director at Statistics Canada, to let her know that “it appeared there was a problem in the income data.” It originated in the formula for calculating income support programs, according to an internal email summary.

At approximately 8 p.m., a more senior analyst who had been called in confirmed there was a problem with the formula used to calculate income-support programs for a portion of the population.

Early the next day, senior census staff at Statistics Canada were told of the issue. Between 11 a.m. and noon, staff from multiple divisions split into three groups to review the potential impact of the error on various aspects of the NHS data and release.

Around 2:30 p.m. that afternoon, the gravity of the problem was apparent.

“After this review, it became clear that the issue affected the majority of the release products and that to rectify the issue would require a significant amount of time,” Hale said in the email summary.

A special meeting of the Analysis Review Board on Data Quality was called for 4 p.m., and the group recommended the NHS release be delayed until Sept. 11, 2013.

Chief Statistician Wayne Smith was informed of the problem the next morning, Monday, Aug. 12. He approved the recommendation to delay the NHS release, according to the documents.

Officials at Industry Canada and the Privy Council Office were also notified that morning.

Within a few hours, staff at Industry Canada were wondering how common such delays were with major releases, and whether they had occurred with past censuses.

“I’d suspect it’s pretty rare for Census,” Daniel Boothby, chief, special economic studies, at Industry Canada, said in an email. Although the initial release of the 2006 Census was delayed a month, that was because of difficulty in hiring and retaining field staff.

By early Monday Aug. 12, staff at Statistics Canada were carefully crafting a news release announcing the delay of the NHS release – which originally had been set for Aug. 14. The release was rescheduled to Sept. 11.

The information was sent to senior officials at Industry Canada (which is responsible for Statistics Canada), and to the Privy Council Office for approval. Officials at both Statistics Canada and Industry Canada laboured over the wording of the news release and the questions and answers they would provide journalists.

Industry Canada senior staff suggested the media lines should make clear that the delay was not because of the voluntary nature or non-responses included in the NHS, compared to the previous mandatory long-form census.

“Should we have a (media line) that says ‘Because of Statscan high quality standards, all data must be re-processed,’ ” asked one email between senior officials at Industry Canada.

By Aug. 14, the day the release was initially planned, Statistics Canada had rerun its data and was confident the fix had worked and a release could take place – though it would take place almost a month later.

“We are back on the rails,” census manager Marc Hamel said in an email, with a smiley face emoticon.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/records-shed-light-on-why-national-household-survey-release-was-postponed/feed1Census NHS 20130502jasonfeketeSenators scramble to repay even minor expenseshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-scramble-to-repay-even-minor-expenses
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-scramble-to-repay-even-minor-expenses#commentsMon, 05 May 2014 17:24:26 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=439485]]>OTTAWA ­— Senators have been scrambling to repay any expense claims that could raise questions, apparently to get ahead of the federal auditor general as his teams slowly pore over the red chamber’s spending documents.

The Citizen has learned that some senators have started reviewing even minor expense claims to root out issues before Michael Ferguson’s teams arrive. Whenever issues have been flagged, senators have repaid the amounts in question.

In most cases, the amounts are small, such as a meal claim when food was already being provided at an event, according to sources with knowledge of the payments.

Yet Canadians aren’t allowed to know how much has been paid back: The Senate says the information is confidential and refuses to release the total amount of reimbursements since the federal auditor general began his sweeping probe of Senate spending.

Instead, the Senate said such information is found in the quarterly expense reports, which provide high-level overviews of the spending of individual senators.

Those reports, however, can be misleading because they show the net value of expense claims processed during a three-month period, not necessarily the actual spending during that timeframe.

For example, several senators whose reports show repaid expenses – including Marjory LeBreton, Michel Rivard, Michael MacDonald and Don Plett – said the dollar figures were refunds for cancelled flights, not for repayments of questionable expense claims.

As senators try to identify problems and pay back potentially problematic claims, they are also trying to update their spending rules yet again, hoping to ensure no one can, in future, use the excuse that the rules were unclear.

Details of those rule changes are being debated behind closed doors, but sources told the Citizen that the document would provide thorough guidelines for political staff filing claims and for the senators they serve, which would ensure no one could say they believed out-of-bounds travel was somehow within the rules.

The three-member executive of the Senate’s internal economy committee is reviewing the guidelines and rule changes, which, if approved, would be part of the second batch of amendments to the upper chamber’s spending rules in as many years. Speaker of the Senate Noel Kinsella, chairman of the committee, told senators that the executive plans to look at the rule changes Thursday.

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-scramble-to-repay-even-minor-expenses/feed0Michael FergusonjordanpresF-35 decision back in government’s court as air force completes major studyhttp://o.canada.com/news/f-35-decision-back-in-governments-court-as-air-force-completes-major-study
http://o.canada.com/news/f-35-decision-back-in-governments-court-as-air-force-completes-major-study#commentsFri, 11 Apr 2014 17:18:23 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=426779]]>OTTAWA – The countdown on a decision over the F-35 has begun now that air force officials have completed a highly anticipated study of the controversial stealth fighter and its competitors.

The Harper government accepted the “options analysis” report late last week, officially putting the issue back in their laps after more than a year-and-a-half with the Defence Department.

Officially, the government doesn’t have to rush on deciding what to do about the jet fighter; Canada has already missed its window to order F-35s this year. It will now have to wait until January 2015, at the earliest, if it does decide to go ahead with a purchase.

However, the schedule could be tighter if the government decides to hold an open competition – hoped for by the F-35’s competitors as well as opposition parties – since that could take years to conduct.

In either situation, delivery of the first new aircraft won’t happen until around three years after an order is placed.

Canada’s existing CF-18 fighter jets are set to be completely retired by 2020, unless the government decides to invest to keep them flying longer.

Complicating matters is next year’s federal election. The F-35 was an issue in the last election in 2011, although that was before Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report about the project and turned it into a true political hot potato. Any future decision will require cabinet approval and prompt widespread political attention, both in Canada and abroad.

Canada is one of nine international partners involved in developing and purchasing the F-35, and each partner’s decisions affect the price and schedule of the others.

The options analysis recently concluded by defence officials was actually the second review of the F-35 and its competitors.

Ferguson issued his report in April 2012. It identified serious flaws in an earlier study in which defence officials said the F-35 was the only aircraft capable of meeting Canada’s requirements.

Ferguson’s report, along with revelations that the purchase and operation of 65 F-35s would cost $46 billion, prompted the government to order defence officials back for a second look, in December 2012.

Lockheed Martin, the company that builds the F-35, as well as its competitors, has largely praised the new review, which had been quietly going on since last year.

However, anything less than an open competition is sure to set off another firestorm of controversy by prompting allegations the study was a paper exercise designed to justify a decision to go with the F-35.

lberthiaume(at)ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume

Some developments in the past 18 months:

–Progress has been made on the design and more planes are being produced for the U.S. and some other allies, even though the aircraft is still in development years after it was supposed to have been completed.

–There are signs the cost of purchasing the aircraft is coming down, though U.S. congressional auditors say there are still significant concerns about the long-term costs of owning and operating the jet fighter.

–While South Korea recently announced it would buy 40 F-35s, a number of other partners have either postponed or reduced their own plans to purchase the stealth fighter. That affects the price and schedule for all other countries.

Decision Time: key dates to watch on the F-35 dilemma:

January to March 2015: The next window for Canada to order the F-35. Canada was supposed to place an order for four aircraft this year, but missed that opportunity. Delivery is three years after an order is placed.

Oct. 19, 2015: The scheduled date for the next federal election. Whether the government decides to go with the F-35, hold an open competition or put off a decision, the stealth fighter is expected to be an election issue.

2017: Canada’s existing CF-18 jet fighters were supposed to start being retired at this point. Now they will have to continue flying at least one more year. The impact will likely be minimal at first, but gradually increase as long as a replacement isn’t obtained.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/f-35-decision-back-in-governments-court-as-air-force-completes-major-study/feed1F-35leeberthiaumeFinal report on F-35 dropped references to fuel, IT problemshttp://o.canada.com/news/final-report-on-f-35-dropped-references-to-fuel-it-problems
http://o.canada.com/news/final-report-on-f-35-dropped-references-to-fuel-it-problems#commentsFri, 11 Apr 2014 20:05:23 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=426978]]>OTTAWA — A Defence Department report billed as the first step in a more open, transparent era for the F-35 project initially listed many of the stealth fighter’s problems – such as issues around fuel efficiency and software development – but those sections were removed in the final version.

The December 2012 final report, in response to Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s scathing review of the F-35 project, was focused solely on price. It included the revelation that it would cost Canada about $46 billion to buy and operate 65 F-35s.

But the Citizen has obtained more than a dozen earlier drafts of the report showing defence officials had originally laid out many of the issues surrounding the F-35’s development, and their potential impact on Canada.

Several versions state the goal of the report was to provide “a comprehensive assessment of the F-35.

“The Department of National Defence has sought to communicate clearly and frankly in answering not only the concerns of the Auditor General and of Parliament, but also those of the Canadian people,” the earlier versions say.

Those words are missing from the final draft. “This first annual update is focused particularly on the cost of the F-35A,” it reads instead.

The Department of Public Works, which is now responsible for leading the F-35 project, did not respond to questions last week about why the changes were made, saying only that the report went through several drafts that were reviewed by senior officials.

But the differences in drafts may prompt questions about the government’s commitment to being more open about the stealth fighter program, particularly as some the risks persist to this day.

Here are some of the issues identified in earlier drafts but missing in the final report:

Fuel Consumption: The F-35 consumes 26-per-cent more fuel than Canada’s current jet fighter, the CF-18. Public Works and National Defence did not respond to questions last week about why the stealth fighter uses so much more fuel than the CF-18s, which were designed in the 1970s. Rising fuel costs are a concern for militaries around the world, particularly when it comes to aircraft. The Royal Canadian Air Force has said it plans to fly the F-35s about 20-per-cent less per year than the CF-18s to keep costs down, making up the difference with simulators.

Software Development: The is listed as the “main challenge” facing the F-35 in the very first draft of the report, and repeatedly cited as an issue in later drafts, until being removed altogether. The stealth fighter contains about 8 million lines of code, which is more than any other fighter aircraft. The software is essential for everything from flying the F-35, to communications, to using its weapons. Some versions of the report express optimism that the problems will be resolved before Canada gets its first stealth fighter, but others say there is “a risk that, despite the time available before Canada’s first anticipated aircraft delivery, they may not be completed.” U.S. congressional auditors wrote last month that significant software development problems persist, threatening to create further delays in the fighter being ready for operation.

Helmet Development: A state-of-the-art helmet is essential for pilots to fly the F-35 safely and in a way that maximizes its full potential. However, the helmet’s development has been a serious problem for years. Defence officials acknowledged this in early versions of the report, describing it as a “high risk,” and noting an alternate helmet was being designed and could be used as a “stop gap until the primary helmet is ready.” There is no mention of helmets in the final version.

lberthiaume(at)ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/final-report-on-f-35-dropped-references-to-fuel-it-problems/feed0F35-UNIONleeberthiaumeFederal elections bill feels like payback for alleged anti-Tory biashttp://o.canada.com/news/federal-elections-bill-feels-like-payback-by-for-alleged-anti-tory-bias
http://o.canada.com/news/federal-elections-bill-feels-like-payback-by-for-alleged-anti-tory-bias#commentsThu, 10 Apr 2014 00:44:25 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=425514]]>It is coarse to imagine the Conservatives are conspiring to fix the next election, in plain sight of everyone. If you were bent on suppressing the opposition vote, evading spending limits, and otherwise participating in electoral fraud, presumably you would not take the trouble to advertise this in legislation.

On the other hand, if they are not up to no good, they are doing their best to convince people they are. The secrecy surrounding the Fair Elections Act, the failure to consult in advance of its drafting, the curtailment of debate after, the supreme indifference to legitimate criticism, all under the chilling oversight of the Minister for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, would be enough to make anyone nervous.

More troubling has been the minister’s failure to explain why the bill’s most controversial measures were deemed necessary — what problems they would solve — and why they should have diverged so sharply from what every expert in the field has recommended, or from existing practice, in Canada and abroad.

Most everyone who looks, for example, would say Canada has a problem with falling turnout: yet the bill, with its ban on vouching and proscription on official efforts to encourage people to vote, would almost certainly depress turnout further. Unable to persuade witnesses to co-operate in the robocalls affair, Elections Canada had asked for more powers to investigate: to compel evidence from witnesses, but also to demand parties turn over records such as receipts for expenses and the phone numbers of those called. Not only was every one of these requests denied, but the agency found itself bound, gagged and cut in two.

Minister of State (Democratic Reform) Pierre Poilievre responds to a question during Question Period. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

No evidence has been advanced why spending and contribution limits needed to be raised, why expenses incurred to raise funds from previous donors should be exempt, or how Elections Canada will be able to ensure those fundraising calls are not used to promote the party or get out the vote. No one asked for these provisions, just as no one recommended that the winning party in each riding be allowed to install its partisans, rather than Elections Canada officials, as poll supervisors: What could possibly be the justification for this?

Whatever the intent of these provisions, their effect is clear. In almost every case, it is to benefit the ruling party: the party that those least likely to vote are least likely to vote for; the party that raises the most funds, with the longest donor list; the party with the most seats, and the most polls to supervise. And, it must be said, the party with the most extensive history of being investigated by Elections Canada. Perhaps the suspicions these arouse are unfounded; if so, the government has made no effort to dispel them.

Quite the contrary. In the face of the most comprehensive panning from expert witnesses of any bill in living memory, the minister has simply retreated further into his talking points. The ban on vouching is needed to prevent fraud — though there is no evidence of fraud taking place. The power to compel evidence is something not even the police have — though it is common in other regulatory agencies. When the author of a report on irregularities in the last election, Harry Neufeld, complained that Poilievre was misrepresenting his findings, he was told he did not understand his own report. When two former Elections Commissioners, in charge of investigations, testified they were quite independent of the chief electoral officer, they were assured they were not.

Unable to answer its critics’ objections, the government has lately shifted into attacking their character. Poilievre told a Senate committee Tuesday that the CEO, Marc Mayrand, is motivated by nothing but a desire for “more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.” The former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, other government members hinted, was on the take: hadn’t she accepted payment to sit as co-chair of Elections Canada’s advisory board? The board’s other members, among them some of the country’s most widely respected political and legal figures, were dismissed by a Tory senator as “celebrities.” The provincial chief electoral officers, political scientists, law professors and other specialists who have denounced the bill were derided as “self-styled” experts. The only people, it would seem, with the integrity or the expertise to comment on the bill are the people who have drafted it to their own advantage.

There’s precedent for this, sadly. It is of a piece with the government’s previous attacks on the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, and the current auditor general, Michael Ferguson. Like the CEO, their criticisms were dismissed as incompetent at best, partisan at worst — though, like the CEO, both were appointed by this government. This is more than a baseless smear on three conscientious public servants. It is an assault on their independence and authority as officers of Parliament.

But we are into new territory with the attacks on Elections Canada, as recent statements from within the party would seem to confirm. A Conservative MP told The Hill Times the severing of the agency’s investigations branch was likely in retaliation for its handling of the robocalls matter. Stephen Harper’s former communications director, Geoff Norquay, suggested it was “vengeance” for its successful prosecution of the party in the “in-and-out” affair. The Prime Minister himself, asked in Parliament about the bill’s effect on Elections Canada’s independence, mused about the need to ensure the agency is “held accountable for its actions.”

So that is the issue. That’s what the Fair Elections Act is about. With an election less than 18 months away, the government has declared war on the organization in charge of running it. It believes, or wants the public to believe, that Elections Canada is biased against it, and needs to be reined in. And its sole evidence for this extraordinary charge is the agency’s tendency to catch Conservatives in its dragnet. The recklessness — with the facts, with reputations, with the public’s faith in the democratic process — is astounding. The odds of a crisis are growing.

Postmedia News

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/federal-elections-bill-feels-like-payback-by-for-alleged-anti-tory-bias/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000andrewcoynePierre PoilievreSenator’s travel expense claim for prayer meeting under scrutinyhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-travel-expense-claim-for-prayer-meeting-under-scrutiny
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-travel-expense-claim-for-prayer-meeting-under-scrutiny#commentsMon, 24 Mar 2014 18:53:34 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=416275]]>OTTAWA — A Conservative senator’s spending is under special scrutiny from the Senate itself, after he made a trip to Washington that the Senate’s leadership didn’t approve.

Sen. Don Meredith, a pastor from Toronto, spent five days in Washington for the National Prayer Breakfast, a gathering of some 3,000 international politicians and diplomats that included U.S. President Barack Obama and members of the United States Congress.

Senate sources say Conservative whip Sen. Beth Marshall didn’t approve the trip, yet Meredith still went. The Senate’s own rules allow senators to take trips to Washington. The Hill Times newspaper reported that Meredith expensed business class flights for him and his wife, and a claim of $1,294 for hotel, taxis and meals.

As a result, insiders suggested Monday that Meredith was being punished by his party for not following orders, and that the punishment includes a spending review by the Senate.

Senate sources say Meredith has been punished before for flouting party orders, including losing spots on committees.

There have been questions about his spending, including his choice to fly business class between his home in Toronto and Ottawa rather than ride the train for free.

And late last year, Meredith spoke out and abstained on a vote to suspend senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin without pay over their spending.

“I believe that we have rushed to judgment pending an RCMP investigation and I don’t believe that we have taken all the facts into consideration,” Meredith told reporters after the vote. “If I was accused tomorrow morning of breaking a Senate rule, I would like to be able to come before my Senate colleagues and be able to defend myself.”

“The auditor general is currently examining the expenses of all senators. We expect all senators to spend taxpayer’s dollars responsibly,” said spokesman Sebastien Gariepy.

Auditor general Michael Ferguson is looking at how senators spend public funds, with the power to review expenses going back years. He is also vetting how the Senate administration reviews expense claims, with his final report expected to expose any problems.

Three MPs went on the same trip as Meredith, and charged the House of Commons for flights, hotels and meals. Conservative MPs Steven Fletcher and Harold Albrecht went to the prayerbreakfast, along with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. Albrecht’s office confirmed he expensed more than $1,000 for the three-day trip, while May’s office said she expensed $980 for an economy, round-trip flight, and two days of per diems for food and taxis, but didn’t expense a hotel as she stayed with a friend.

Fletcher didn’t say how much he expensed, but said the claims followed Treasury Board guidelines. He also said the trip was worth any cost.

“You can do in three days what would probably take three years in any other context,” Fletcher said. “There’s just no other place that you’ll find the president, the vice-president, Congress in one place at one time and accessible.”

jpress@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-travel-expense-claim-for-prayer-meeting-under-scrutiny/feed1MeredithjordanpresSenate audit done by now? Auditor general was ready to say so, documents showhttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/senate-audit-done-by-now-auditor-general-was-ready-to-say-so-documents-show
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/senate-audit-done-by-now-auditor-general-was-ready-to-say-so-documents-show#commentsTue, 18 Mar 2014 17:52:43 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=412467]]>OTTAWA — When Canada’s auditor general walked before senators in June to officially take on the task of conducting a sweeping probe of Senate spending, he made no promises of when he would complete his review.

Copies of Ferguson’s speaking notes were released to the Ottawa Citizen under the access to information act.

An early draft of his speaking notes said this: “During the reporting phase, we will confirm and validate the facts in a draft report with the clerk and the audit sub-committee. The results of our work will be presented in the form of a report addressed to the Speaker for presentation in the Senate. It is too early for us to fix a date for this report, as we need to complete our planning, but will aim to complete our examination in late 2013 or early 2014, and report in fall 2014.”

The final draft, used as Ferguson’s opening statement to the committee said this: “During the reporting phase, we will confirm and validate the facts in a draft report to the clerk and audit sub-committee. The results of our work will be presented in the form of reports addressed to the Speaker for presentation in the Senate. It is too early for us to fix a date for reporting, as we need to complete our planning.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/senate-audit-done-by-now-auditor-general-was-ready-to-say-so-documents-show/feed0Auditor general Michael FergusonjordanpresSenate cases off to court as other investigations continuehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-cases-off-to-court-as-other-investigations-continue
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-cases-off-to-court-as-other-investigations-continue#commentsFri, 14 Mar 2014 21:39:29 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=411501]]>OTTAWA — This week, the fraud cases of one suspended senator and another who retired in the summer will get a first airing in court. What else looms for the red chamber? Here’s what you need to know:

In court: On Monday morning, the case of Sen. Patrick Brazeau, charged with one count of fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust, reaches an Ottawa courtroom, though it’s unknown if Brazeau himself will be there (a lawyer can answer the charges for him).

Tuesday morning, the same process begins for retired Liberal Sen. Mac Harb (he does not plan to appear in person).

With the RCMP: The RCMP has said it will update Canadians on other investigations of interest but it has yet to do so: these include investigations into Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses, and Sen. Mike Duffy’s housing and office spending. There’s also the matter of former Harper chief of staff Nigel Wright’s $90,000 payment to Duffy. The silence has fuelled speculation about whether further charges are coming.

At the auditor general’s: Canadians await the outcome of a comprehensive Senate spending review by the federal auditor general, Michael Ferguson. He recently posted a “frequently asked questions” page about the Senate on his website, a rare move for an office that doesn’t publicly discuss its work. Senators have been told the auditor general could refer suspicious cases to the RCMP before the audit ends.

In the Senate: Conservatives in the upper chamber have started posting detailed spending figures online, some even creating websites as a result of a party decision to release detailed expense figures. The independent Senate Liberals are trying to figure out how to post their expenses to their communal website. The Senate’s internal economy committee is still discussing uniform disclosures for each senator. And soon, another round of quarterly expense reports will be made public

The other investigation: An internal Senate investigation continues into harassment allegations against Sen. Colin Kenny. Portions of a purported interim investigative report were leaked to the media late last month, painting an unflattering picture of the Pierre Trudeau appointee. Questions continue to be raised about if and when a final report will be made public. Kenny has denied all allegations against him.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-cases-off-to-court-as-other-investigations-continue/feed0BrazeaujordanpresAuditor general posts Q-and-A about his study of Senate spendinghttp://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-posts-q-and-a-about-his-study-of-senate-spending
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-posts-q-and-a-about-his-study-of-senate-spending#commentsWed, 12 Mar 2014 19:48:46 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=410053]]>OTTAWA — The federal auditor general plans to refer any cases he finds of questionable spending by senators to the RCMP even before his current comprehensive audit of Senate spending is made public.

The detail is contained in a list of frequently asked questions about the Senate audit that was put online this week — an unusual move for the auditor general’s office, which doesn’t normally publicly discuss aspects of any audit. The office posted information online after receiving numerous questions from the media and public — and after a series of leaks to the news media about the normally confidential audit.

Senators already had been warned that auditor general Michael Ferguson might refer cases of concern to the RCMP. News that he might refer those cases once he’s done poring through the spending, but before a final report is made public, will do little to assuage nervous senators.

“If, after completing our audit work, we have a reason to believe that a criminal offence may have been committed, the matter will be referred,” said spokesman Ghislain Desjardins. “It would be inappropriate to speculate on any specific cases.”

Desjardins wouldn’t say if the office has already referred any cases to police.

The RCMP has already charged one current senator, Patrick Brazeau, and one former senator, Mac Harb, with fraud over $5,000 and breach of trust. Both cases will be before a court next week.

The Mounties started probing the expenses for each senator before the Senate itself formally referred the cases to police.

Desjardins said the auditor general’s office made the decision to post a list of FAQs online “with the intention of transparency, accuracy and consistency,” and would update it as new questions roll in.

Much of what appears on the website mirrors what Ferguson has said publicly when questioned about the audit. For instance, the website says senators have asked questions and “information about what we are doing, but so far we are satisfied with the level of cooperation.”

The online statement notes that up to 40 auditors are working on the file at any one time, and that “no decision has been made” about providing the Senate with an interim report. Senators asked Ferguson in June if he could provide an interim report on the Senate’s spending oversight mechanisms, and the auditor general told senators at the time that he hoped to do so.

“We have never made a formal commitment to deliver an interim report,” Desjardins told The Ottawa Citizen. “Still no decision has been made about interim reporting at this time.”

Senators have told the Citizen they’ve been warned that Ferguson’s final report will name names, identifying the findings for each senator. The website says the auditor general’s office won’t “speculate on the audit findings, or how they will be presented,” and won’t say whether senators will see Ferguson’s final report before it is made public.

“We are not speculating about future steps,” the website says. “The report will be addressed to the Senate with a covering letter addressed to the Speaker of the Senate.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-posts-q-and-a-about-his-study-of-senate-spending/feed10.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000Michael FergusonjordanpresF-35 ‘irrelevant’ without accompanying stealth jet, says U.S. generalhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/f-35-irrelevant-without-accompanying-stealth-jet-says-u-s-general
http://o.canada.com/news/national/f-35-irrelevant-without-accompanying-stealth-jet-says-u-s-general#commentsThu, 06 Mar 2014 20:27:43 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=407625]]>New questions are being raised about whether the F-35 stealth fighter is the right aircraft for Canada after a U.S. general acknowledged the jet is limited in what it can do and needs to be accompanied on its missions by another multi-million-dollar aircraft.

The issue for Canada and other potential F-35 buyers is that the other aircraft referred to by the general – the F-22 – isn’t available for foreign sales because of its sophisticated technology.

Gen. Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S., said the F-35 is critical for the future of that country’s air force. But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22.

“The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.”

The U.S. Air Force is upgrading the F-22, which officers see as essential. Without the upgraded F-22s, “the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant,” Hostage said.

The comments have sparked heated debate in aerospace and defence circles, and analyst Martin Shadwick says Hostage’s statements are bound to raise eyebrows in Canada. “I’m sure you won’t see the general’s comments in any F-35 marketing literature,” said Shadwick, a York University professor. “Canada needs a multi-role fighter and even if the F-22 were available we couldn’t afford another aircraft to fly top cover for the F-35s.”

Senior Royal Canadian Air Force officers have acknowledged they are keen to see the F-35 in Canada.

But in 2012, the Conservative government put a temporary halt to its purchase of the F-35 and appointed a group of senior officials to examine options for the replacement of the country’s CF-18 fighter jets.

That process is still under way. Public Works and Government Services can’t say when it will be completed.

Hostage’s comments echo earlier concerns by critics that the F-35 is mainly designed to strike at ground targets and is not well suited for aerial combat and interceptions.

But Mike Barton, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Canada, said the F-35 meets all Canada’s needs. The general’s comments are a reflection of how the U.S. Air Force operates and are not relevant to Canada, he added.

Barton said Lockheed Martin has not seen any adverse reaction to Hostage’s comments from the Canadian government or any other nation interested in purchasing the F-35. “We’ve heard nothing about it impacting foreign interest,” Barton said.

The F-35 stealth fighter had become a major political headache for the Conservative government, which made it a lynchpin of their defence policy.

The controversy surrounding the F-35 purchase has centred on technical and cost issues, as well as the acquisition process. The Department of National Defence originally claimed the project would cost around $14.7 billion but then-Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page put that price tag at around $29 billion.

That conclusion is contained in a letter from KPMG seen by The Ottawa Citizen. The letter cites the issue as a “significant deficiency.”

KPMG, which annually audits the Senate’s financial statements, made the observation in a mid-September letter to the clerk of the Senate, after completing its work on the Senate’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013. The management letter, as it’s known, is a routine filing that auditors use to flag any issues identified in the course of a financial audit.

In the Sept. 17, 2013 letter, KPMG auditors wrote that the “expense claim policies related to housing allowances were not sufficiently detailed” regarding what kind of documentation was required to “ensure amounts claimed were appropriate.”

“The potential effect of this deficiency is that ineligible expenses may be approved and paid,” the letter reads.

It’s the second time the Senate has been told by an outside audit team that its rules, and the documents senators are required to submit to verify their expense claims, are not clear enough. Earlier in 2013, auditors from Deloitte came to a similar conclusion about the Senate’s housing rules after reviewing theclaims of senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and former senator Mac Harb.

KPMG’s caution also landed just weeks before the Senate moved to suspend Duffy, Brazeau and Pamela Wallin over their expense claims.

“That has been my contention all along and I’m not surprised,” Brazeau said of the details of the KPMG letter. “The Senate (committee) of internal economy has much to hide.”

The KPMG letter is to be made public when the Senate posts its financial statements in a few weeks.

The Senate’s audit committee, which reports to the internal economy committee, was notified of KPMG’s findings and recommendations to strengthen the expense claim system just over a month before the Senate launched into a debate about suspending Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin without pay.

The KPMG auditors said the Senate’s system of reviewing expense claims, which requires each senator to report their own expenses, carries a risk “that ineligible expenses are paid.” The letter goes on to say that no matter what the Senate does, the system will never be risk-free.

KPMG recommended the Senate have senators sign an annual declaration that they are adhering to spending rules. As well, it recommended senators go through mandatory annual training to ensure they’re up to date on their own spending rules, and create a guide to give more details about spending rules.

The chairwoman of the audit subcommittee, Sen. Beth Marshall, said the Senate agreed with all the recommendations.

“We’re either doing most of these things or we will be implementing them to comply with the recommendations,” said Marshall, a former Newfoundland and Labrador provincial auditor general.

“We’re either doing most of these things or we will be implementing them to comply with the recommendations.”

The Senate response to the observations from bothDeloitte and KPMG was almost identical: the rules were “unambiguous” and the form attesting to where a senator has a primary and secondary residence was “amply clear” for anyone filling them out.

That response was contained in a letter O’Brien sent to Marshall, chairwoman of the audit subcommittee, on Oct. 15, 2013.

What KPMG recommended the Senate do to strengthen its expense claim system:

1. Annual performance audits of expense claims to make sure claims are correctly processed, approved or rejected. (The auditor general is evaluating how the Senate reviews expense claims as part of his comprehensive audit of Senate spending.)

2. Have senators sign an annual compliance agreement declaring that their claims are in line with Senate rules. (Senators sign a similar declaration with every expense claim they file.)

3. Mandatory training programs on filing expense claims for new senators and staff and an annual “update module” for everyone else. (The Senate provides training on expenses for new senators.)

4. Creating a companion to the rules with details about the interpretation or application of certain rules. (The Senate has a similar companion guide for its general rules.)

Senators on the internal economy committee — the body that oversees spending in the upper chamber — made the decision behind closed doors after a series of news stories were published containing confidential information about the auditor general’s not-yet-released audit.

The committee made the decision in December behind closed doors, The Ottawa Citizen has learned.

The committee asked its security division, which is in charge of the physical security of the Senate and senators as well as securing sensitive information, to look into the leaks and find ways to better keep secret the confidential details of auditor general Michael Ferguson’s comprehensive review.

When senators were first told the details of the audit late last year, they, their staff and members of the Senate’s administration were all warned to keep details confidential. Ferguson’s office has given out few details of the audit, citing that confidentiality.

There are conflicting details about how far along Ferguson is in the audit, with some suggesting his teams are nowhere near done with the first batch of senators under review. Ferguson is reviewing two years worth of expenses for all senators, with the possibility of going even further into past spending should he find something amiss with any individual’s expenses.

The decision to launch an investigation into leaks is a change in direction for the committee, which saw numerous tidbits of information about spending audits on four senators — Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin — leaked to reporters over the last 12 months.

Wallin’s lawyer even provided the committee with a list of leaks about details of her travel spending audit, arguing that they were intentionally given to selected media to damage her reputation. The list included names of people who had access to Wallin’s audit documents, suggesting that any of them as the source of the leak.

The Senate has not investigated leaks very well in the past.

Two years ago, the Senate’s banking committee started an investigation into a leak of a draft report on its study of the nation’s anti-money laundering initiatives to a French-language news outlet. In the end, the committee called no witnesses and told the Senate as a whole that it had dropped the matter.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-security-to-probe-information-leaks-about-auditor-generals-probe/feed0throne speech senatejordanpresSenator’s motion will ask for review of MPs’ expenseshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-motion-will-ask-for-review-of-mps-expenses
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-motion-will-ask-for-review-of-mps-expenses#commentsMon, 24 Feb 2014 19:29:38 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=401664]]>OTTAWA — An independent Liberal senator wants the upper chamber to ask the auditor general to review spending in the House of Commons.

The motion to be tabled Tuesday from Sen. Percy Downe, if passed, will have no power over auditor general Michael Ferguson or the House of Commons. Rather, Downe said the motion is a “gentle nudge” to MPs to call in Ferguson and address public concerns that federal politicians widely cheat on their expenses.

Downe said the public no longer believes it is fine to leave expense reviews behind closed doors to an internal committee of MPs or senators.

Sen. Percy Downe

“Times change. Expectations change. Standards change. What was acceptable 20 years ago, 10 years ago is not acceptable now,” Downe said. “Parliamentarians have to keep up with the times.”

The motion, though, is also wrapped up in a war of words between the Senate and the Commons over whose spending is cleaner.

MPs have used the Senate spending scandal to allege widespread misconduct among all members of the upper chamber and, for the NDP, push for Senate abolition. At the same time, more than a few senators — including some who have worked for or served as MPs — have suggested privately that not all spending in the House of Commons is clean.

Even among members of the public there is belief the Senate spending scandal, and the four senators who had expenses audited, is just the tip of the iceberg. Those were the results of a public opinion poll, commissioned by the Privy Council Office — the central bureaucracy that aids the prime minister and cabinet — that was posted online this month.

The auditor general is in the midst of a comprehensive review of Senate spending, which senators agreed to in the wake of damning reports and police allegations against four of its members. Two of those four have been charged with fraud and breach of trust — former Liberal senator Mac Harb and suspended senator Patrick Brazeau — while similar allegations hang over two more: suspended senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin.

The review is supposed to be completed by the end of 2014 or early 2015.

But Downe said the review of the Senate isn’t enough: “There are two wings of Parliament. It’s not even half the job because expenses in the House of Commons are four times higher (than in the Senate).”

jpress@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

Text of motion:

“That the Senate call upon the Members of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada to join the Senate in its efforts to increase transparency by acknowledging the longstanding request of current and former auditors general of Canada to examine the accounts of both Houses of Parliament, and thereby inviting the auditor general of Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of House of Commons expenses, including Members’ expenses, and that the audits of the House of Commons and the Senate be conducted concurrently, and the results for both Chambers of Parliament be published at the same time.”

The emails were provided to the Toronto Star by the Liberal party Friday after Leslie suggested recent Conservative attacks against him over $72,000 in relocation expenses were retaliation for his having chosen the Liberals over the Tories.

They were intended to prove the Conservatives were interested in the retired general, and that the Tories had no questions about the retired general’s judgment and character before he decided to enlist with Trudeau and company.

Yet the emails leave many questions unanswered, including how serious the retired general, whom the Liberals are touting as one of their star candidates going into next year’s federal election, was about working with the Conservatives, and vice versa.

The emails show Leslie was talking with senior members of Harper’s staff as early as June 2011, several months before he retired from the Canadian Forces.

The first email between Leslie and Harper’s deputy chief of staff, Derek Vanstone, revolved around a possible position heading the Canadian Museum of Civilization, according to the Star. Ultimately that position was given to another candidate, though the emails do not indicate why.

Three months later, after Leslie had left the military, he was again in talks with the government, this time about a leadership position with the RCMP. This time it was Leslie who said he was not interested, writing to Vanstone: “You need somebody who has the passion, and a natural series of friends and allies within the RCMP to help drive the tough changes that are required.”

But Leslie added that if there were no other suitable candidates, “then duty would in, as I would never say no to the PM.” He then proceeded to write that “if you are looking for help with the Canadian Forces — that is something I really have a passion for.”

More conversations followed in April and September of 2012, at which time the retired general was working for a large information and technology company called CGI Group, heading their new defence, public safety and intelligence unit in Ottawa.

The final email shows Leslie and Jenni Byrne, who headed the Conservative party’s 2011 election campaign, setting up a meeting to discuss an unknown subject.

According to the Star, a Liberal source said the Conservatives had suggested Leslie run for the party in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier or nearby Carleton-Mississippi Mills.

Most of the emails refer to offline conversations, the nature and content of which aren’t exactly known.

Leslie’s past relationship with the Harper Conservatives dominated much of the Liberal party convention in Montreal on Friday, with a game of he-said, she-said erupting after the retired general used a speech to Liberal delegates to attack the Tories. Touted as a star candidate for the party, Leslie was given half an hour to address the party faithful, during which time he used his military credentials to launch a broadsided attack on the Conservatives’ management of defence procurement and its treatment of veterans.

But most of the attention was on his response to recent Conservative attacks following revelations last week that taxpayers footed $72,000 in relocation costs and real estate fees for a move within Ottawa upon his retirement in 2012. The Conservatives have latched onto the issue to attack Leslie’s character and judgment, with Defence Minister Rob Nicholson describing the expense claims as “grossly excessive” and “a matter of judgment and the responsible use of taxpayers dollars.”

During his speech, Leslie described the relocation expense claim as part of a “standard package” offered to all military personnel with 20 years of service when they retire. He charged that the Conservative attacks weren’t actually about the relocation program; rather, “this was a partisan attack designed to discourage others like me, or like you, from joining Justin’s team because certain people are frightened by the spirit optimism and hard work.”

At the same time, Leslie said he had talked to a variety of political parties after he left the Canadian Forces, and when he decided to join Trudeau’s team, “one of the other parties didn’t take to this too well.” He said he told the party: “It’s not you, it’s me. But after this week, let’s be honest, it was really them.”

Leslie did not name the party, but the comments were clearly meant to point the finger at the Conservatives.

Shortly afterward, however, Conservative party spokesman Cory Hann sent out a statement to reporters in which he said: “Andrew Leslie approached the Conservative Party of Canada.” Hann did not provide any further information, including when the first approach was made or the nature of those talks.

Leslie danced around questions about his relationship with the Tories during a news conference later in the day, but did not deny that it was he who made the first move.

“Over the course of the last couple of years, depending on what level, people approached me and as you get higher up the food chain, you’re talking to them and you’re approaching them, and it’s a bit of a back and forth,” he told reporters. “Much akin to a dance.”

The controversy threatened to overshadow the Liberal convention Friday, where delegates are fleshing out many of the policies that are expected to form the party’s platform in next year’s federal election. It also raises questions about the process in which star candidates are recruited by parties, which is particularly relevant to the Liberals as they have sought to rebuild with fresh blood and people of substance since their devastating electoral loss in 2011.

Leslie, who made no indications he was planning to return the $72,000, denied he chose the Liberals because they made him a better offer than the Conservatives.

“I’ll tell you what the offer I got from Justin was,” he said. “I can tell you with certainty that I joined the better team and the better man. The promise that Justin made me was no pay and lots of hard work, mainly on weekends.”

He refused to say what other parties he spoke to, though a spokesman for the NDP said he was unaware of any discussions with the retired general.

Leslie joined Trudeau’s Liberals as an adviser on foreign affairs and military matters last September, and is widely expected to seek the Liberal nomination in the Ottawa-Orleans federal riding, which is home to hundreds of military families.

In all, National Defence paid out more than $600,000 to move dozens of generals and admirals between 2008 and 2013, according to records obtained by the CTV News and Global TV. Leslie’s $72,000 expense claim was the largest on a list that also included a $40,000 payment to disgraced former brigadier-general Daniel Menard, and $10,000 to move the officer who was in charge of Canada’s mission to Somalia in 1993, retired brigadier-general Serge Labbe.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s office is currently looking at relocation services offered by the federal government, and is expected to report on the issue this coming fall.

The controversy around Leslie’s expense claims have highlighted concerns raised by the Canadian Forces ombudsman and military officials about the heavy financial burden placed on average military personnel and their families when they are transferred to different locations. Some military families have borne up to $80,000 in losses on the sale of their homes after National Defence has told them to relocate.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/retired-general-andrew-leslie-to-reveal-tories-tried-to-recruit-him/feed2andrew leslieleeberthiaumeAuditor general “satisfied” so far with cooperation from senators in spending probehttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/auditor-general-satisfied-so-far-with-cooperation-from-senators-in-spending-probe
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/auditor-general-satisfied-so-far-with-cooperation-from-senators-in-spending-probe#commentsThu, 06 Feb 2014 16:09:53 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=392880]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s auditor general says his office is “satisfied” with the level of cooperation it is receiving from senators.

Auditor general Michael Ferguson made the comment Wednesday night before walking into a meeting with the Senate’s aboriginal affairs committee where he discussed the federal government’s responsibilities to First Nations. (It was also one of the few public comments Ferguson has made about the audit.)

Here’s what Ferguson said:

Q: How is the audit progressing?

Ferguson: “We’re still underway with it, doing the work — it’s progressing. It’s a lot of work. We’re looking at a lot of information, but it’s progressing.”

Q: How do you feel about the level cooperation you’re receiving from senators?

Ferguson: “So far, we’re satisfied with the cooperation. Obviously there are questions and they want information about what we’re doing and that type of thing, but I think so far we’re satisfied with the level of cooperation.”

Q: How much outside help have you had to hire to assist with the audit?

Ferguson: “We’ve adjusted mostly our internal resources. There may be one or two outside resources that we’ve hired, but we’re doing it mostly by juggling our own resources.”

Q: Are your teams feeling public pressure to finish the audit quickly?

Ferguson: “We’re doing our best not to do the audit in public, but I don’t think the auditors are feeling pressure. We know we have a job to do and we’re going to do it the way we always do it, with the same rigour and care we always do an audit. And at the end, we’ll report the results whatever they are.”

Do you still believe December is a reasonable target for completion?

Ferguson: “It will be somewhere between December and the first quarter of 2015. It’s hard to exactly say when we’ll be exactly finished. We’re hoping to be finished by the end of this calendar year, but we’ll have to wait and see.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/auditor-general-satisfied-so-far-with-cooperation-from-senators-in-spending-probe/feed1Auditor general Michael FergusonjordanpresNew federal environment commissioner comes from the mining sectorhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/new-federal-environment-commissioner-comes-from-the-mining-sector
http://o.canada.com/news/national/new-federal-environment-commissioner-comes-from-the-mining-sector#commentsWed, 05 Feb 2014 15:23:19 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=392868]]>OTTAWA — The federal auditor general has selected a former mining industry executive with more than 25 years experience in environmental and social responsibility as the new Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson announced Wednesday that Julie Gelfand has been appointed the environment commissioner effective March 24, 2014.

Gelfand most recently held the positions of chief advisor at Rio Tinto Canada, and vice-president of environment and social responsibility at the Rio Tinto Iron Ore Company of Canada, where she managed issues related to water effluent, air quality, government and community relations, and aboriginal negotiations.

Prior to that, she was vice-president of sustainable development at the Mining Association of Canada, and served as president of Nature Canada from 1992 to 2008.

Julie Gelfand

“The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development plays a key role in promoting sustainable development and good environmental management by the federal government,” Ferguson said in a statement announcing the appointment. “I look forward to working with Ms. Gelfand to fulfill this aspect of the office’s mandate.”

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is responsible for assessing whether federal government departments are meeting their sustainable development goals, and for overseeing the environmental petitions process. The commissioner reports to Parliament on behalf of the auditor general.

If ever there were a hope, however faint, that the sordid saga of Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb would ease gently into that good night, it vanished Tuesday with the laying of formal charges by the RCMP against Brazeau and Harb — the former currently on suspension from the Senate without pay, the latter retired under a cloud.

With these counts of fraud and breach of trust, one of each against both men, comes the near inevitability of more of the same in future against other residents or former residents of the upper house. So, we can now chart the next chapter: The accused will put the Senate itself on trial, as they vigorously defend themselves by suggesting, in essence, that “it weren’t wrong because we all done it.”

Politically it’s the equivalent of bombing the bridges, torching the fields and salting the wells as you retreat across France. This is unlikely to prove edifying for either the prime minister, or Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, despite the efforts of each to distance himself from the widening carnage. And it could prove a lifeline to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair.

Here’s why: It’s a simple story about cheating by people who should have known better, who owed the country better, which everyone understands. It cuts to the heart of a rotten system of entitlement and waste, the exposure of which has been Kryptonite to Canada’s political system itself, which was built by Liberals and Conservatives.

The amount of money that sloshes here and there in Ottawa is astonishing, as I have noted here before. Conferences, parties, conclaves, meetings, parties, more conferences, more parties — the rounds of gabbing, glad-handing, schmoozing, drinking, eating, gossiping and back-patting, or back-stabbing, never end. In this most expensive of cities, in the political village demarcated by Bank Street to the West and the Chateau Laurier to the East, there’s always a free lunch on offer from someone.

No one enjoyed these fringe benefits of political insiderhood more than members of the Senate, simply because they have — or had — few hard and clear responsibilities, little oversight, no one to keep an eye on their comings and goings, beautiful, plush offices, staff to help them with their schedules and meetings, expenses accounts, travel budgets and a generous salary — $132,000 annually — to keep them in vittles. But even that, and access to the seat of power, apparently wasn’t enough. Some felt compelled to get just that little bit more.

With Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin suspended, and with the Liberal party last week formally disassociating itself from its 32 now former Senators, it had begun to seem that most of what could be done by the Liberals and Conservatives, by way of damage control, had been done. Mulcair had actually been sounding a bit wan so far this sitting, carping about last year’s big story. The Conservatives have positioned themselves to hammer away at the offending senators as bad apples in an otherwise unblemished barrel; the Liberals as idealists, looking forward to a day when the 105-member chamber is made up of worthy, impartial, respected citizens, providing sober second thought, as was intended at Confederation.

Into both those strategies now intrudes the reality of pending court testimony, with each of Brazeau and Harb, one former Conservative and one former Liberal, detailing in excruciating detail all the ways in which they merely did what was customary and expected and common practice, and indeed sanctioned by their parties and by Senate officialdom. We know this will be Brazeau’s defence; he said as much before his suspension. As for Duffy, who like Wallin remains under investigation but has yet to be charged, no one can predict what he might say on the stand. We only know, again based on his spectacular scorched-earth performances last year, that if put to it he will cast the net of blame as far and wide as anyone humanly can.

The raw material for such an effort may come in the form of an audit into Senate expenses, currently in the works, from auditor general Michael Ferguson. Given what we’ve already learned, both from previously released RCMP documents, and Senate speeches during the suspension proceedings, the audit report could be ugly indeed.

The Liberal case against Mulcair’s proposal to abolish the Senate virtually at all costs — that is, even if doing so requires reopening Constitutional talks — is predicated on the Red Chamber being widely deemed an annoyance and a waste and a haven for the entitled, but nothing so inflammatory as to warrant going to the trouble of reigniting the Quebec problem. That’s a reasonable bet, for now.

But if it emerges, either in the audit or in the course of court testimony, that the story so far is merely the tip of a much bigger iceberg, then all bets are off — and Mulcair will have his case for ripping the place down, brick by brick.

Dec. 4: The Ottawa Citizen reports that Sen. Mike Duffy has claimed $33,413 in living expenses for a secondary home in Ottawa. Key quote: Mike Duffy: “I have done nothing wrong, and am frankly tired of your B.S.”

Dec. 7: The Senate decides to audit residency claims after questions are raised about Sen. Mac Harb’s allowances. Key quote: David Tkachuk: “Your primary residence is what you say your primary residence is … It’s where you file your income taxes from, where you get your mail.”

Dec. 12: A letter to senators tells them they have to provide their health card, driver’s licence, income tax return and signed letter stating where they vote, in order to prove their residency claims. Key quote: David Tkachuk: “Residency is a very complicated issue. The Senate has never tested it.”

December: During a Conservative Senate caucus meeting (the date is not clear), Duffy is asked to repay his housing allowance. One Tory senator in the room suggests Duffy resign his Senate seat.

Jan. 3, 2013: The Senate officially hires auditing firm Deloitte to review Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses for the period of April 2011 until September 2012.

Feb. 7: Brazeau is arrested and charged after a domestic dispute unrelated to the Senate spending affair. He is removed from caucus. Questions emerge about Sen. Pamela Wallin’s primary residence in Wadena, Sask. Similar questions plague Duffy. Key quote: Mike Duffy: “I have a home in Prince Edward Island as required by law. I will have no further comment until this review is complete.”

Feb. 8: Brazeau, Harb and Duffy expense claims are sent to auditors for review. Senate’s internal economy committee asks for special legal advice on Duffy’s residency. Key quote: David Tkachuk: “I have seen no evidence to call in the RCMP, but that doesn’t mean anything.”

Feb. 11: Senate leaders say anyone who wrongfully claimed housing allowance should repay money with interest. Key quote: Marjory LeBreton and James Cowan: “We believe it is vital for the reputation of the Senate and those senators who are in full compliance with our rules and regulations that this determination be made as soon as possible and that the result be made public.”

Feb. 12: CTV reports that Wallin’s travel spending is being audited. Tkachuk visits room 204 in Langevin, arriving at 1:41 p.m. ET, leaving at 2:05 p.m. ET. He is there to brief Wright on Duffy’s spending audit. It is the only time the two men talk face-to-face about Duffy’s audit, Tkachuk will later say. About 20 minutes after Tkachuk leaves Langevin, Sen. Irving Gerstein arrives. He also visits room 204. Gerstein arrives at 2:24 p.m. ET and leaves at 4:28 p.m. ET. Patrick Brazeau is suspended with pay from the Senate because of the assault charges against him and the need to “protect the dignity of the Senate”.

Feb. 13:Harper defends Wallin’s expense claims under questioning in House of Commons. Key quote: Stephen Harper: “I have looked at the numbers. Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over that period of time.”

Feb. 14: NDP accuses Wallin of billing the Senate for partisan political activities, pointing out the former broadcast journalist claimed about $26,000 in “other travel” during the quarter in 2011 that included the six-week federal election campaign. Key quote: Marjory LeBreton: “All activities that are not related to the Senate should not be charged to the Senate.”

Feb. 17: Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says Wallin is a “clear” and “regular presence” in Saskatchewan, but says questions about her travel expenses need to be cleared quickly. Brad Wall on CTV Question Period: “I don’t know about the details of expenses, that needs to be resolved, but she has a presence here for sure.”

Feb. 19: Duffy tells reporters in Prince Edward Island that he rents a second home in Charlottetown during the winter, explaining why his Cavendish, P.E.I., residence appears to have no one living there. He has previously said he spent $100,000 on the Cavendish property to make it a year-round home. Key quote: Mike Duffy: “Canadians know I’m an honest man and I wouldn’t cheat on my expenses.”

A home belonging to Senator Mike Duffy is shown in Cavendish, PEI on Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Devaan Ingraham)

Feb. 20: Duffy writes in an email that various scenarios had been worked out with the prime minister’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright. The email is revealed in May in a CTV report.

Feb. 22: Duffy publicly says he will repay his living expenses, saying he may have made a mistake in declaring his primary residence in P.E.I. Key quote: Mike Duffy: “The Senate rules on housing allowances aren’t clear, and the forms are confusing. I filled out the Senate forms in good faith and believed I was in compliance with the rules. Now it turns out I may have been mistaken.”

Feb. 28: The Senate starts a review of its spending rules as all but Duffy, Brazeau and Harb are cleared of housing allowance questions. Key quote: Marjory LeBreton: “Very clearly, this exercise has pointed out that we have considerable work to do to further strengthen and clarify the rules.”

March 7: Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu repays the Senate $907 in housing expense claims he used while staying with his office assistant with whom he was romantically linked. It emerges that Duffy owes the Senate $90,000.

March 25: Harb tells The Ottawa Citizen he will wait until the results of the audit before deciding whether he will repay any expenses. Key quote: Mac Harb: “There’s an independent auditor and we’ll wait for the report.”

March 25: The Senate is reimbursed for $90,172.24 of Duffy’s housing expenses. The news is not made public.

March 26: Duffy’s lawyers send a letter to auditors telling them that the senator’s participation in the audit of his expenses is no longer required.

April 2: Wallin steps down as chairwoman of the Senate’s defence committee, citing personal reasons to help deal with an ill family member.

April 16: Wallin’s auditors meet with the internal economy committee. After presenting their findings, the committee expands the audit to include the period between April 2009 and March 2011.

May 8: Harb is invited and attends an internal economy committee meeting where senators review the findings of his audit. According to Harb, his lawyer is not given a chance to speak during the meeting.

May 9: The Senate’s internal economy committee recommends Brazeau and Harb repay about $48,000 and $51,000, respectively, in housing claims. Letters emerge suggesting Tkachuk, the committee chairman, spoke with Duffy about per diems Duffy claimed while in Florida. Key quote: David Tkachuk: “I in no way gave him a heads-up about the audit prior to his repaying of expenses, given that he had already repaid the expenses when our conversation took place.”

May 9: Mac Harb resigns from the Liberal caucus. In a press release, Harb’s office says his lawyers will determine “all legal actions that can be undertaken to quash the decision” of the internal economy committee.

May 10: Conservatives in the House of Commons, responding to questions about the Senate audit, praise Duffy for repaying his expenses. Key quote: Peter Van Loan: “He showed the kind of leadership that we would like to see from Liberal Sen. Mac Harb, who instead is taking up arms against the Senate, saying that he should not have to pay back inappropriate funds.”

May 12: The RCMP confirms the Mounties are examining the expense-claim audits to see if a criminal investigation is warranted.

May 15: Harper’s office confirms chief of staff Nigel Wright wrote Duffy a personal cheque of more than $90,000 to cover the repayment of expenses after a CTV report the night before detailing a backroom deal between the two men. That report also raised questions that the money was part of a “whitewash” of Duffy’s final committee report, which went easy on the Conservative senator. Key quote: Andrew MacDougall, Harper spokesman: “Duffy was unable to make a timely repayment. Mr. Wright therefore wrote a cheque from his personal account for the full amount owing so that Mr. Duffy could repay the outstanding amount.”

May 16: Duffy resigns from caucus over reports he charged the Senate for expenses while campaigning for the Tories in the 2011 election. Key quote: Mike Duffy: “It is clear the public controversy surrounding me and the repayment of my Senate expenses has become a significant distraction to my caucus colleagues and to the government.”

May 17: Wallin announces she is leaving the Tory caucus. She later reveals she was forced to leave caucus and suggest Wright was on his way out as chief of staff at the time. Key quote: Pamela Wallin: “I had anticipated that the audit process would be complete by now, but given that it continues, I have decided to recuse myself from the Conservative caucus, and I will have no further comment until the audit process is complete.”

May 19: Wright resigns as Harper’s chief of staff. Key quote: Nigel Wright: “I did not advise the prime minister of the means by which Sen. Duffy’s expenses were repaid, either before or after the fact.”

Sen. Pamela Wallin. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick)

May 21: Senators vote to order Brazeau to repay $48,000 in expenses and send Duffy’s final report back to the committee for review amid allegations it was whitewashed, which Conservatives deny. Key quote: Sen. Marjory LeBreton: “I know that there are conspiracy theorists and I know you don’t like my answer, but my answer happens to be the truth.”

May 22: LeBreton tells the Senate that senators should one day disclose expenses in detail, similar to cabinet ministers. Wallin is in the chamber during LeBreton’s speech. Key quote: Sen. Marjory LeBreton: “We simply must provide greater transparency, especially regarding travel expenses.”

May 23: Duffy suggests there be public hearings into his expense claims. Key quote: Mike Duffy: “I think Canadians have a right to know all the facts and I’m quite prepared, in the right place and time, to give them the whole story.”

May 28: Tkachuk tells the Senate there was “no whitewash” of Duffy’s final audit report from his committee. Critical language appearing in Harb and Brazeau’s reports was removed from Duffy’s because his expenses had been repaid. Key quote: Sen. David Tkachuk: “If I had received a cheque from Sen. Brazeau and Sen. Harb, their reports might have been a lot different as well.”

May 28: A letter is sent from the internal economy committee to Brazeau informing him he has 30 days to repay the approximately $49,000 the Senate says he owes in improper housing claims.

May 29: Prime Minister Stephen Harper, under questioning in the House of Commons, says Wallin will not be allowed back into caucus unless she is cleared of any wrongdoing. Key quote: Stephen Harper: “If she has in any way acted improperly, she will be subject to the appropriate authorities and the consequences for those actions.”

June 3: A letter is sent to Harb from the internal economy committee informing him he has 30 days to repay the approximately $51,500 the Senate says he owes in improper housing claims. The letter also suggests Harb voluntarily repay a total of about $231,000 in expenses dating back seven years. Key quote: David Tkachuk: “We’re asking for their (Harb and Brazeau) money back and I’m sure we will get it back.”

June 7: The Senate’s internal economy committee tells auditors reviewing Wallin’s expenses to expand their audit again to include the period of January and March 2009, effectively going back to the date of Wallin’s Senate appointment.

June 10: Wallin’s auditor send a letter to the internal economy committee. In it, they say a final report on Wallin’s spending won’t be available until late July. The letter says they are reviewing housing claims Wallin made between 2009 and 2011, as well as possible double-billing.

June 13: Wallin breaks her silence in a broadcast interview with the CBC. She says she talked to Wright about her expenses as the audit progressed, but didn’t receive any offers of financial help. She takes responsibility for what she calls mistakes by billing the Senate for travel that she should have billed to “third parties,” such as boards she sat on. She also says she was forced out of caucus by Senate leadership and Harper’s current chief of staff, Ray Novak, as the ones who gave her “an hour to resign” or “be fired.”

June 17: Harb launches a legal challenge to the Senate’s decision that he should repay his housing allowance, filing papers in Ontario Superior Court.

June 20: Liberal Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette asks the Senate ethics officer to investigate Boisvenu for reportedly trying to obtain extra vacation time for a woman working for the Senate’s administration to whom he is romantically linked. Key quote: Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette: “We’re not a small business where you hire your brother or your sister or your uncle. This is Parliament. We have rules and I don’t think these rules were followed.”

June 28: A deadline for Brazeau to repay his living expenses passes without repayment. Brazeau’s office says he doesn’t intend to pay as that would be an admission of guilt and he feels he has done nothing wrong.

July 2: The Senate sends a letter to Brazeau informing him that the Senate will withhold 20 per cent of his annual $135,200 salary until it recoups the money he owes. The clawback of his salary will last about 21 months.

July 3: A deadline for Harb to repay his living expenses passes without repayment. The Senate prepares to withhold 20 per cent of his salary until it recoups the money, a set-off that will last about 22 months.

July 4: On her 73rd birthday, LeBreton announces she is stepping down as government leader in the Senate. The Harper government says it doesn’t intend to give another cabinet post to a senator.

July 10: Gerald Comeau, the new chair of the senate internal economy committee, announces the Wallin audit will be ready on August 13.

July 15: Harper shuffles his cabinet and does not replace Marjory LeBreton, meaning there are no senators at the cabinet table.

July 26: The Liberal leader in the Senate says he never heard from Mac Harb about problems concerning Harb’s housing allowance. Documents filed in court by the RCMP indicate Harb took out a $55,000 loan just days after the Senate asked him to repay $51,000 in housing allowance claims. In the documents, Harb claims he checked with Senate officials about moving his primary residence to Cobden, Ont., just outside the 100-kilometre limit to qualify for the housing allowance.

July 31: The new minister for democratic reform, Pierre Poilievre, releases the federal government’s position for the Supreme Court reference on reforming the Senate. Key points are that the federal government can make changes to the Senate without consulting the provinces; and the support of only seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population is all that is needed to abolish the upper chamber.

Aug. 1: Documents filed in court by the RCMP indicate Sen. Patrick Brazeau never lived in the house in Maniwaki, Que. that he claimed as is primary residence and allege fraud.

Aug. 13: The Deloitte audit of Pamela Wallin’s travel claims is released. The Senate immediately refers it to the RCMP for further investigation and recommends that Wallin be ordered to repay an additional $90,000 for inappropriate claims. They also place restrictions on her travel. Wallin defends herself, calling the audit process “fundamentally flawed and unfair.”

Senator Pamela Wallin makes a statement on August 12, 2013.

Aug. 26: Mac Harb gives up. After repaying $230,000 in living and travel expenses Harb resigns 16 years early and drops his lawsuit against the Senate.

Sept. 14: Wallin repays the Senate almost $114,000 for her improper travel expenses. The payment includes more than $13,000 in interest, repayment of which had yet to come to the Senate for a final vote. Wallin continues to deny any wrongdoing. Key quote: Pamela Wallin: “Unfortunately, the Senate Committee succumbed to a ‘lynch mob’ mentality. There was no regard to procedural or substantive fairness. I am disappointed and angry about the way in which this matter was handled, and any implication that I behaved dishonestly.”

Oct. 2: Police are called to Patrick Brazeau’s Gatineau home twice during the night of Oct. 1. Conflicting media reports suggest he was taken to hospital and might be depressed, but he is not arrested and no one is charged. His office asks for privacy.

Oct. 8: Court documents reveal the RCMP are investigating Duffy for alleged breach of trust and fraud relating to $65,000 worth of contracts to a friend from his CTV television days, widening the original investigation.

Oct. 9: Undisclosed health concerns cause a delay in Patrick Brazeau’s next court appearance on charges related to domestic assault in February 2013. His next court appearance is scheduled for Valentine’s Day, 2014.

Oct. 17: The new government leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan, announces he will table a motion to suspend Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin without pay and restrict their access to Senate resources because of “gross negligence.” Hours before this announcement, Duffy issues a news release saying his doctor wants him to take medical leave for heart problems.

Oct. 18: Through her lawyer, Wallin indicates she may sue the Senate if they suspend her without due process.

Oct. 21: Duffy’s lawyer, Donald Bayne, holds a news conference to read excerpts from emails that suggest the PMO approved of Duffy’s expense claims and that it planned the repayment of the housing expenses and was in the loop about everything. Bayne suggests Duffy will fight back against the Conservative Party if he is suspended from the Senate. Key quote: “He had the good sense to ask and clear this with the Senate leader. He has not been for years surreptitiously trying to make inappropriate living allowance claims, he was cleared from day one.”

Oct. 22: All three embattled senators, Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin, show up to challenge the motions to suspend them without pay. Duffy gives an explosive speech accusing the prime minister, PMO and then Senate government leader Marjory LeBreton of bullying him into repaying living expenses that he says were legitimately claimed. Brazeau makes a short statement that he will fight. “I did not do anything wrong.”

Oct: 23:Pamela Wallin makes her statement, accusing Senators Marjory LeBreton and Carolyn Stewart Olsen of a personal vendatta against her. She argues it is unfair to take away her pay and health insurance before she has been found guilty of any crimes.

Oct. 24: The Quebec Court of Appeal rules a federal government bill on Senate reform is unconstitutional. In the Senate, meanwhile, Marjory LeBreton defends herself, suggesting Duffy’s speech contains inaccuracies. Another Conservative senator and former party president, Don Plett, announces he will vote against the motion to suspend the three.

Oct. 25: The Senate holds a rare Friday session to continue debate on the motion to suspend. Patrick Brazeau accuses government Senate leader Claude Carignan of offering him a backroom deal. Carignan says Brazeau misunderstood. Wallin tables more documents that she claims will prove a Conservative party conspiracy to discredit her and a fem more Tory senators express their doubts.

Oct. 28: In a radio interview, Harper suggests his former chief of staff Nigel Wright did not voluntarily resign but instead was “dismissed” over the personal cheque to Duffy. In the Senate, Duffy tables documents supporting his claim the PMO had knowledge of the repayment scheme and paid the fees his lawyer’s charged to negotiate the deal. Meanwhile in a media interview, Patrick Brazeau says the RCMP have yet to be in contact with him and accuses Sen. Marjory LeBreton of not liking Aboriginal People.

Oct. 31: Conservatives in the Senate introduce a compromise motion to suspend Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau without pay but allow them to access Senate resources and keep their medical benefits.

November: Auditor general Michael Ferguson sends a letter to senators informing them that they and their staff may be interviewed under oath, and that investigators may conduct house visits as part of a comprehensive audit of Senate spending. The details of the letter are revealed in a Postmedia News story in January 2014.

Nov. 1: New court documents filed by the RCMP allege Wallin committed fraud and breach of trust. The RCMP also allege concerns were raised about her spending as early as 2010. At the Conservative Party convention, Harper gives a defiant speech, attacking the opposition and refusing to apologize for anything related to the Senate scandal, except his determination to suspend Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau. At the same event, two cabinet ministers, Jason Kenney and Peter McKay, say positive things about Nigel Wright. Key quote from Harper: “And they (the opposition parties) then portray the offenders as victims or, even, martyrs. Friends, in terms of such opponents, I couldn’t care less what they say. We will do the right thing.”

Stuart Gradon/Calgary Herald CALGARY, AB: November 1, 2013 – Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks at the Conservative Party of Canada convention at the BMO Centre in Calgary, Alberta Friday, November 1, 2013. (Stuart Gradon/Calgary Herald) (For City story by James Wood)

Nov. 2: Sen. Irving Gerstein, the Conservative party’s chief fundraiser, gives a speech to the party convention denying party funds were ever considered to help Duffy repay his expenses. This contradicts RCMP court documents from July. Key quote from Irving Gerstein: “First, I made it absolutely clear to Nigel Wright that the CFC (Conservative Fund Canada) would not pay for Senator Mike Duffy’s disputed expenses. And it never did.”

Senator Irving Gerstein

Nov. 4: Conservatives invoke closure in the Senate, forcing a vote on motions to suspend the three senators with health and medical benefits, on Tuesday. Key quote from Sen. Patrick Brazeau: “You may get me out of the way today, but these questions will remain on the record forever.”

Nov. 5: The Senate finally votes. Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau are all suspended without pay but with medical benefits. Only Wallin is present for all three votes. Brazeau left after his vote while Duffy never showed up. Their staff receive lay-off notices.

Senator Pamela Wallin.

Nov.12: The Supreme Court begins three days of hearings about Senate reform. The federal government wants the court to decide if they can unilaterally make changes to the upper chamber without constitutional amendments or provincial consent.

Nov. 20: In new court documents, the RCMP allege Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy committed breach of trust, bribery and fraud in relation to the $90,000 payment in March 2013. Wright, through his lawyer said, “I acted within the scope of my duties and remain confident that my actions were lawful.”

Nov. 20: Sen. Colin Kenny informs Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau that he’s leaving caucus while the Senate investigates him over allegations of sexual assault. He denies all the charges against him.

Nov. 28: The audit team from Deloitte faces senators on the internal economy committee. At issue is an allegation in the most recent court document that a senior partner at the firm, Michael Runia, tried to affect the outcome of the audit at the request of Conservative Sen. Irving Gerstein. One auditor confirms Runia called him, but that Runia received no information about Duffy’s review.

Nov. 30: Two Conservative senators retire early.Gerald Comeau, who took over the helm of the internal economy committee after David Tkachuk stepped down, retires from the Senate seven years before his mandatory retirement age. Comeau says he had decided to leave months earlier, but kept the decision quiet until a few weeks before his departure. Meanwhile, David Braley, owner of the B.C. Lions and Toronto Argonauts, quietly leaves the Senate three years before mandatory retirement at age 75.

Dec. 4: Sen. Irving Gerstein rules out of order a request from Liberal Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette that he step down as chairman of the banking committee until he has been cleared of any wrongdoing for his involvement in allegedly trying to influence the outcome of Duffy’s audit. Gerstein tells Hervieux-Payette he’s “quite surprised” she would “raise that issue” before ruling: “I have been elected as committee chair and I rule the motion out-of-order.”

Dec. 4: The Conservative majority in the Senate votes down a motion from the Liberals to haul Deloitte partner Michael Runia before the internal economy committee for questioning over his role in Duffy’s audit. Conservative Sen. Vern White, a former RCMP officer and Ottawa police chief: “For us to start bringing in their potential witnesses in front of our committee, I think, is a mistake. The timing is wrong right now.”

Dec. 10: Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella rules as out of order a question of privilege from the Liberals that asked the upper chamber to investigate potential leaks of Duffy’s audit to the Prime Minister’s Office before the document had been tabled in the Senate. Meanwhile, senators publicly confirm that three different committees are looking at how the Senate disciplines its members for wrongdoing.

Dec. 12: Conservative Senator Hugh Segal announces he is taking early retirement in June 2014 to head up Massey College at the University of Toronto. In a statement, Segal says, “Late 2014 would mark my ninth year in the Senate and the time is right for new challenges.”

Dec. 12: Conservative senators meet behind closed doors to discuss possibly skipping Stephen Harper’s weekly meeting with his MPs. While the meeting is taking place, Senate Speaker Noël Kinsella in an end-of-year meeting with reporters says there is no “causal connection” between the scandal and a decision by three Tory senators to take early retirement.

Dec. 12: Liberal Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette asks the Senate ethics officer to investigate Sen. Irving Gerstein and whether he used his position to influence the outcome of Duffy’s audit, and therefore influence Duffy’s private interests.

Dec. 23: Senate expense reports show it cost $50,000 to close up Brazeau’s office, including paying severance to his staff. Those documents also show that senators cut their expenses by almost two per cent over the previous 12 months compared to the same period pre-scandal.

Jan. 15, 2014: Liberal MP Ralph Goodale writes to information commissioner Suzanne Legault asking her for a second time to widen her investigation of the Privy Council Office and the documents it is and isn’t releasing under the access to information law about the Senate expenses scandal. In the letter, Goodale says “the government’s handling of this information is a matter of serious concern.”

Jan. 15: A newly released court document outlines how the RCMP received Sen. Pamela Wallin’s monthly calendar backups from the Senate.

Jan. 29: Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau makes a surprise announcement and removes all Liberal senators from the party caucus. He indicates he will seek changes to the party constitution to prevent the party from having senators. After the initial surprise wears off, the newly independent senators decide to regroup as the Liberal Senate caucus.

Jan. 30: Senators on the internal economy committee are told that the first of three parts of Michael Ferguson’s audit is nowhere near completion. It comes on the same day that the committee sets dates for the launch of monthly reports on the travel habits of senators. The cost to automate the reports is estimated to be $155,000, according to a secret briefing note to the committee viewed by Postmedia News.

Feb. 4: The RCMP lay charges of fraud and breach of trust against former senator Mac Harb and current independent senator Patrick Brazeau. The RCMP said they are continuing to investigate other Senate files, a reference to the ongoing investigations into Wallin and Duffy, who is facing two separate investigations — one for a payment he received from Nigel Wright over his housing allowances, the other for about $65,000 worth of consulting contracts given to a friend for what police allege was little or no work.

Senate sources say auditor general Michael Ferguson’s teams have completed their review of the first batch of senators — the leaders, deputy leaders, whips and those who were on the powerful internal economy committee when the audit began.

An interim report on the audit could arrive as early as this week when senators return to Parliament Hill from their winter break. Senators expected Ferguson’s interim report before Christmas, but when none arrived, many braced for the results to come this month.

The report is also expected to provide analysis of the Senate’s oversight mechanisms that have come under fire.

When it does arrive, there is an expectation that more than one senator will be found with questionable expenses, although not as high as the amount senators Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and former senator Mac Harb were ordered to repay.

Some senators have started creating a paper trail for expense claims that didn’t require one before, while others have done their own review of expenses even before Ferguson’s teams arrive to start their review.

In a summary of the audit given to senators in November, Ferguson’s office wrote that the audit won’t look at the “constitutional, legislative, (or) public policy roles” of senators, but rather whether senators are following the rules about travel, housing and office spending, including how they hire staff and consultants.

The audit summary notes the audit is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Senators were warned that as part of the review they may be asked to provide information under oath, as allowed under the auditor general act, and give auditors personal banking information.

Ferguson wrote in a secret three-page letter to senators in November, a copy of which was obtained by Postmedia News, that some senators may be subject to house visits to verify that where they call home is indeed their primary residence. Others could find their spending reviewed going back beyond the current timeframe for the audit, which is all spending since 2011.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/interim-senate-audit-on-travel-housing-expenses-expected-this-week/feed3Michael FergusonjordanpresPoor financial planning shortchanging Canadian troops: auditorshttp://o.canada.com/news/poor-financial-planning-shortchanging-canadian-troops-auditors
http://o.canada.com/news/poor-financial-planning-shortchanging-canadian-troops-auditors#commentsMon, 20 Jan 2014 23:41:38 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=385444]]>OTTAWA — Military planners have been forced to skimp on several occasions when purchasing new equipment for Canada’s men and women in uniform thanks to poor financial planning, according to a scathing internal Defence Department audit.

The findings go directly to many of the problems that have been plaguing efforts to buy new military aircraft, warships and armoured vehicles, all of which cost billions of dollars and are desperately needed.

The auditors found planners had used “insufficient rigour” when coming up with early cost estimates for many of the largest and most complex military procurement projects, which in turn set the stage for difficulties down the road.

Some of the blame could be placed on a shortage of officials in key planning and management positions.

For example, auditors found the part of National Defence responsible for managing equipment projects was understaffed by 23 per cent — a number that was expected to increase to 29 per cent in three years.

That echoes concerns raised by senior naval officials more than a year ago who noted there were more than 400 people working directly on the Halifax-class frigate program in the 1980s, and only about 30 currently assigned to the project that will replace the ships.

“There needs to be an understanding across this community about the relative fragility of the staff capacity that we are seeing,” current navy commander Vice-Admiral Mark Norman said at the time. “This is not anyone’s fault. It’s just a reality.”

But the auditors also found what appeared to have been basic errors, including a failure to build in contingencies to protect against unexpected cost increases, or to account for inflation associated with technological improvements.

Defence planners also failed to consult industry early on numerous projects to find out what types of equipment was available and could be afforded, and even didn’t follow established guidelines in a number of instances.

All of this resulted in error-prone cost estimates that forced “capability trade-offs to offset increases and to remain within budget,” the auditors wrote in their final report, which was recently published online.

Federal Auditor General Michael Ferguson came to similar conclusions two months ago when he reported that the Navy was at risk of shrinking in size and capability because the federal government had not budgeted enough for its $38-billion shipbuilding plan.

But whereas Ferguson said the problem was that the budget was set on “rough estimates” derived years earlier, the Defence Department auditors’ conclusion can be read to say those rough estimates should have been a lot better than they were.

The Defence Department auditors said efforts are underway to try to strengthen the way military planners come up with initial cost estimates, including hiring more staff and standardizing the way officials come up with their numbers.

They also said Canadian officials have generally fared better than counterparts in the U.S. and Britain, though they criticized National Defence for not doing its own homework when figuring out what lessons could be learned from past experience.

The parliamentary budget officer has also previously raised concerns about the way project costs are initially determined, most notably with regards to the F-35 stealth fighter project, and plans to purchase new Navy resupply ships and Arctic patrol vessels.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/poor-financial-planning-shortchanging-canadian-troops-auditors/feed1leeberthiaumeMilitary going to the ends of the earth to keep search-and-rescue airplanes flyinghttp://o.canada.com/news/military-going-to-the-ends-of-the-earth-to-keep-search-and-rescue-airplanes-flying
http://o.canada.com/news/military-going-to-the-ends-of-the-earth-to-keep-search-and-rescue-airplanes-flying#commentsMon, 06 Jan 2014 21:34:30 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=378118]]>OTTAWA – The Canadian military has been going to the literal ends of the earth to keep its aging search-and-rescue airplanes flying, reiterating the desperate need for replacement aircraft following decades of delays and political squabbling.

Top Defence Department officials were told in a secret briefing last year that the military had been forced to “purchase spare parts from around the world” to ensure the “continued airworthiness” of the Air Force’s 47-year-old Buffalo airplanes.

“In addition, we have purchased 16 used engines of a different variant than those of the Buffaloes for parts,” reads a briefing note obtained by Postmedia News. “By using common parts, we can maintain and prolong the operational life of the existing Buffalo engines.”

The briefing came after Auditor General Michael Ferguson reported last spring that the federal government’s search-and-rescue capabilities are in danger of crumbling, in part because the Air Force’s six Buffalo and eight Hercules rescue aircraft are on their last wings.

The airplanes are used to respond to thousands of emergencies across the country every year, but Ferguson noted they are becoming prohibitively expensive to operate and maintain.

Senior defence officials were told in the briefing that “other avenues” were being considered to keep the Buffaloes flying, “but only those strategies that represent good value for public funds will be pursued.”

At the same time, they stated search-and-rescue is a “no-fail mission” for the military, meaning it must be able to respond when Canadians’ lives are in danger.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said National Defence had previous chances to upgrade the Buffalos and collect spare parts when the replacement project started running into problems nearly a decade ago, but refused to do so.

“It seems like opportunities for due diligence have been passed up,” he said. “Now they face a situation where these planes are going to have to be flying for another couple of years and they’re in panic mode.”

Efforts to replace the Buffaloes, first purchased in 1967, and the Hercules were launched in 2002, with money set aside in 2004 in anticipation of the first new plane being delivered in 12 to 18 months.

But the Defence Department was accused by some companies of rigging requirements for the new search-and-rescue airplane so one specific aircraft, the Italian C-27J Spartan, would win.

The military denied it rigged the process, but a National Research Council report published in March 2010 backed up the allegation and called for the requirements to be rewritten.

The project was subsequently taken out of National Defence’s hands and given to the Department of Public Works, which has overseen a complete restart.

Aircraft manufacturers were asked last month to indicate whether they are interested in having their airplanes compete for what will likely be a $3-billion contract.

But new airplanes aren’t expected until at least the second half of 2017, according to National Defence, and an entire fleet won’t be fully operational until 2019.

Even that may be optimistic as Public Works is bending over backwards to hold a completely fair and transparent competition, which some fear will draw out the process.

Ferguson found the Buffaloes already cost about $20 million per year to maintain, and even then they were unavailable on 119 occasions in 2011.

In five of those cases, there was no other airplane available to perform the mission.

Those numbers are expected to rise until replacements are obtained as the Buffaloes and Hercules continue getting older and breaking down.

The auditor general said the situation facing the Air Force fleet has gotten so bad that “the risk associated with aircraft replacement is significantly lower than the risk of maintaining the old fleet.”

Then-defence minister Peter MacKay said in December 2008 that there was “no greater priority” than replacing the Buffaloes and Hercules with new aircraft.

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/military-going-to-the-ends-of-the-earth-to-keep-search-and-rescue-airplanes-flying/feed1op_nunalivutleeberthiaumeTips, questions flow to auditor general’s office in wake of Senate probehttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/tips-questions-flow-to-auditor-generals-office-in-wake-of-senate-probe
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/tips-questions-flow-to-auditor-generals-office-in-wake-of-senate-probe#commentsFri, 03 Jan 2014 18:04:37 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=377124]]>OTTAWA — The federal auditor didn’t have to wait long after the launch of probe of Senate spending for help to come in via email.

Weeks after auditor general Michael Ferguson started a comprehensive audit of Senate spending, an email came in to the general mailbox at his office.

What precisely was written in the email dated Aug. 20 was redacted from the copy released to Postmedia News, but the message caught the attention of the office and was passed along to the audit team.

Auditor general Michael Ferguson.

“We have forwarded your email to the team responsible for auditing the Senate of Canada for their information,” Ferguson’s office responded on Sept. 10.

“Our office is in the early stages of planning the audit and may wish to speak with you at a later stage. Should this be the case, the team will contact you directly.”

The email is one of two from the public to Ferguson’s office sent in the weeks after the auditor general met with senators and outlined how his teams would scrutinize travel, hospitality, housing and office expenses. The remaining emails released to Postmedia News under the access to information law are from journalists looking for details about the spending audit.

The second email from a member of the public, sent in early September, asked if Ferguson would name names in his final report.

“The media has reported that Mr. Ferguson may not even tell the public the names of the senators he audits or the details of specific questionable expense claims,” the email reads.

“Is this true? What is the point in doing an audit of publicly funded employees if the names and details are not disclosed?”

Ferguson’s office responded with an acknowledgment note and sent the writer a link to the announcement Ferguson made at the start of the audit.

According to Senate sources, Ferguson is expected to publicly list the findings for each senator. Ferguson is expected to deliver his final report in December of this year.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/tips-questions-flow-to-auditor-generals-office-in-wake-of-senate-probe/feed00.000000 0.0000000.0000000.000000senatejordanpresAuditor general Michael Ferguson.Senators might be interviewed under oath, visited at home in audit of Senate spendinghttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-might-be-interviewed-under-oath-visited-at-home-in-audit-of-senate-spending
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-might-be-interviewed-under-oath-visited-at-home-in-audit-of-senate-spending#commentsThu, 02 Jan 2014 20:59:51 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=376105]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s auditor general has notified senators that a sweeping probe of their spending may include visits to their homes, and that they could be interviewed under oath in “exceptional circumstances.”

The details are laid out in documents auditor general Michael Ferguson’s office provided to senators in November about the comprehensive audit of Senate expenses. Copies of the documents, including a three-page letter Ferguson wrote to senators, were obtained by Postmedia News.

The documents note the Senate spending audit may include auditors visiting the places senators have declared as their primary residence in order to qualify for a $22,000-a-year housing allowance, and looking at spending outside the current period under review — April 2011 to March 2013 —if auditors have concerns about any senator.

Senators’ staff may be interviewed together or separately from their bosses, and possibly under oath.

“The objective of the audit of the Senate of Canada is to determine whether senators’ expenses and other senators’ transactions have been properly controlled and incurred for parliamentary business with due regard for the use of public funds,” reads part of the summary of the audit plan given to senators.

The documents suggest Ferguson’s team will probe deeper into the spending habits of senators — including scrutinizing the spot senators tell the Senate they call home — than outside auditors from Deloitte did in 2013.

The Deloitte auditors didn’t note in their final reports that they used house visits as part of audits of housing claims from Duffy and Brazeau, and former Liberal senator Mac Harb.

This time, Ferguson is reviewing the claims of all senators who have been in the upper chamber over the last two years. However, that time line is flexible: “On an exception basis, we will expand this time period as needed to verify other matters that come to our attention,” the audit summary reads.

The planning phase for the audit is over and teams of auditors have been going into senators’ office poring through spending-related documents. Senators are expected to provide auditors with expense documents within five days of them being requested, and alert Ferguson’s teams if any of the documents have been altered.

“We will request information that we determine is relevant and necessary to enable us to carry out the audit,” Ferguson wrote in a November letter to senators. “We may also access information held by third parties, and auditors may visit the location of senators’ primary residence.

“In addition, we will be conducting interviews with you and your staff (either together or separately). Under certain circumstances, interviews may be conducted under oath, as authorized by the Auditor General Act.”

Ferguson’s final report is expected to publicly list findings for each senator. According to the documents, the final report will be finished by December 2014.

Aside from housing expenses, the spending audit includes the following expense areas:

• Travel — both personal and while on Senate or inter-parliamentary committee business — and hospitality expenses;

• Staffing policies, such as hiring and firing of employees, which internal audits have flagged in the past as being problematic;

• Office spending, such as purchases of goods and services, including contractors for research. Office budgets in the last fiscal year were $161,200.

Wallin landed in hot water for her travel spending, and repaid about $150,000 in questionable claims. Harb and Brazeau were ordered to repay their questionable claims, despite Deloitte auditors saying they couldn’t determine if any rules were broken.

Harb repaid about $231,000 in housing claims going back several years. Brazeau has steadfastly denied wrongdoing, and the Senate has decided to clawback his salary to recoup the $49,000 he owes — an action put on hold while he is suspended without pay.

Duffy’s housing claims have come under RCMP scrutiny, as well as a $90,000 payment from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright. The RCMP have also probed his office spending, including allegations in court documents that Duffy gave $65,000 worth of contracts to an old friend that resulted in little or no work.

None of the allegations has been tested in court, nor have any charges been laid against Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau or Harb.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senators-might-be-interviewed-under-oath-visited-at-home-in-audit-of-senate-spending/feed1Michael FergusonjordanpresAuditors look to personal finances of senators in spending probehttp://o.canada.com/news/auditors-look-to-personal-finances-of-senators-in-spending-probe
http://o.canada.com/news/auditors-look-to-personal-finances-of-senators-in-spending-probe#commentsThu, 19 Dec 2013 18:46:19 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=367316]]>OTTAWA — Federal auditors poring through spending in the Senate have started asking senators for details of their personal finances, as part of efforts to track how money has moved between the Senate and its members.

Senators have corporate expense accounts and credit cards, and the Senate is supposed to offer all such information to the auditor general’s office.

The Senate provided similar documents to the RCMP, which is probing the questionable spending of senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and former Liberal senator Mac Harb. The RCMP received a court order for banks to turn over account and credit card information for all four as part of a forensic investigation that has focused on allegations of fraud, breach of trust and a separate allegation of bribery against Duffy.

None of the allegations has been tested in court, nor have any charges been laid.

Senate sources say investigators with auditor general Michael Ferguson’s office have asked senators to provide copies of their personal bank and credit card statements. At least one senator’s office questioned the request, noting that access to such documents was not included in the terms of reference for the comprehensive audit.

The Senate sources spoke to Postmedia News under condition of anonymity because none was authorized to make public statements about the audit.

Ferguson’s office has declined to comment on the audit as a general rule, but said that it requires personal banking details if they have been used in government business.

“We request those documents that are necessary to conduct the audit,” said spokesman Ghislain Desjardins. “To the degree that personal accounts were used to conduct government business or any matter related to the audit, those accounts would by nature be relevant to the audit and consequently documents that should be reviewed by the auditors.”

The review of Senate spending has given Ferguson’s office unprecedented access to the red chamber’s books. Teams of investigators have been going into senators’ offices as part of a comprehensive audit the Senate ordered over the summer in response to a spending scandal that has dominated its agenda for a year.

The audit is looking at how senators have spent public funds, and the oversight mechanisms in place to protect abuse of the public purse. Oversight in the chamber has been questioned over how Harb, Wallin, Duffy and Brazeau could make claims for years before being admonished; senators continue to argue those mechanisms worked, notwithstanding the years of approved expense claims and that spending audits for Duffy, Brazeau and Harb were ordered after questions of their appropriateness were raised in the media.

Some senators expressed concerns about giving Ferguson such sweeping access, and have pushed back against some requests Ferguson’s office has made, specifically a request to have senators waive solicitor-client privileges and give auditors access to legal documents.

The Senate’s internal economy committee had expected to receive an interim report from Ferguson’s office before the end of the calendar year. That timeline, however, is not set in stone. Senators left Parliament Hill for their winter break last week and didn’t receive any update from Ferguson.

Senators on the internal economy committee expect to receive an update from Ferguson early next year.

The audit is looking at spending since 2011. The results for every senator, including those who may have retired on time or early, is to be publicly reported now at the end of the audit, expected in January 2015 at the latest.

However, Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau don’t, at the moment, appear to be part of Ferguson’s audit. Any senator being investigated by the RCMP won’t have their expenses reviewed by Ferguson’s investigators.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/auditors-look-to-personal-finances-of-senators-in-spending-probe/feed1Michael FergusonjordanpresSenate seeks clearer rules on when and how to punish its ownhttp://o.canada.com/news/senate-seeks-clearer-rules-on-when-and-how-to-punish-its-own
http://o.canada.com/news/senate-seeks-clearer-rules-on-when-and-how-to-punish-its-own#commentsTue, 10 Dec 2013 20:21:21 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=365559]]>OTTAWA — Senators have launched a review of how they discipline colleagues, and what the punishments should be for the next senator found to have run afoul of spending rules as Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau did.

The trio were suspended without pay last month after an acrimonious, divisive and protracted debate in the upper chamber. The three were accused by colleagues of “gross negligence” with their expense accounts, and stripped of all but their titles.

It was only the second time the Senate has acted to suspend without pay, but the first time directly tied to misspending. The only other senator suspended without pay was Liberal Andrew Thompson, who spent more time in Mexico than in the Senate, although he was ultimately suspended without pay for failing to show up when called to testify before a committee of his peers.

The Senate’s conflict of interest committee has already started reviewing what the discipline process should look like, and punishment options based on the level of transgression. The chairwoman of the committee said the review will underscore that “what one senator does impacts everyone else.”

“Senators (will) know what the rules are and what their expectations are in a modern way,” said Sen. Raynell Andreychuk. “The other is that the public can be confident … that there are rules for conduct and that they’re being enforced appropriately.”

The Senate’s rules committee is taking on a similar project. A third committee — the internal economy committee, tasked with oversight of spending — may be pulled in as well to the debate, which is also taking place in the form of a motion on the floor of the upper chamber.

Andreychuk said recommendations should be before the Senate in early 2014.

The drive to deal with the disciplinary process comes as the Senate awaits the first instalment of a comprehensive audit by Canada’s auditor general. An update was expected to be available by the end of the month, but senators on the internal economy committee have yet to hear when the report will land on their desks; it may not arrive until early 2014.

The first part of the report will include a review of spending for the Senate’s leadership and the members of the internal economy committee, a contingent of about 20 people. What will follow are reviews of spending by all members of the upper chamber, with reports appearing about every six months, according to estimated timelines senators have been provided.

Anyone who was in the Senate when the audit started will have their expenses since 2011 reviewed by auditor general’s Michael Ferguson’s office, regardless if they leave the Senate before the end of the audit. That means former senators such as David Braley and Gerald Comeau — who both retired before the mandatory retirement age of 75 — will have their spending probed and findings reported publicly, according to Senate sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t allowed to make public statements about Ferguson’s review.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons debated a private member’s bill that, if passed, would strip convicted MPs and senators of their gold-plated pensions. The Conservative MP spearheading the motion, John Williamson, has said his impetus was the fraud conviction of former senator Raymond Lavigne — who misused his expense account for years — but has taken on new meaning with the RCMP looking into the spending of Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau, and retired Liberal senator Mac Harb.

Williamson’s bill, if passed by both the House and Senate, would apply to any parliamentarian convicted and sentenced to at least five years in prison. Currently, a convicted parliamentarian can keep their pension.

“I want to change the law to close the loophole,” Williamson told the Commons. The message of the bill, he said, is “don’t break the rules. If you don’t break the rules, your pension will be there for you.”

Harb resigned in disgrace in August. He repaid more than $231,000 to the Senate in questionable living claims.

While all four are being investigated over allegations of breach of trust and frauds on the government for their spending, the RCMP are also probing a secret payment Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, made to Duffy to cover the repayment of the senator’s expenses.

In all cases, no charges have been laid, and none of the allegations has been tested in court.

—

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated the number of years for sentences for Conservative MP John Williamson’s bill. The story has been changed to reflect that bill would apply to any parliamentarian convicted and sentenced to at least five years in prison.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/senate-seeks-clearer-rules-on-when-and-how-to-punish-its-own/feed1Senate disciplinejordanpresParliament takes two small steps toward greater opennesshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/parliament-takes-two-small-steps-toward-greater-openness
http://o.canada.com/news/national/parliament-takes-two-small-steps-toward-greater-openness#commentsFri, 06 Dec 2013 00:30:19 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=363209]]>MPs took two small steps towards greater transparency in how they spend tax dollars on Thursday, announcing that they will post two documents online for the first time: the manual that guides them in claiming expenses and a list of “designated travellers,” the person each MP can designate for taxpayer-funded travel.

The committee will not, however, open itself to access-to-information law or allow the auditor general to investigate MPs’ books as it can with other federal institutions, as the NDP has demanded.

The secretive all-party board of internal economy announced the changes in a bulletin to MPs on Thursday.

MPs have been under pressure for years to be more open about how they spend about $500 million a year in parliamentary spending. The money is exempt from access-to-information laws and in 2010 the board of internal economy at first resisted pressure to open its books to then -auditor general Sheila Fraser.

The disclosure rules still fall short of those demanded by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — which would like all expenses posted with receipts, as in Alberta — but the board has begun posting its minutes online, added details to it quarterly reports on individual MPs and has agreed to offer more details in future reports.

In September, the Liberals announced that MPs would begin reporting detailed travel and hospitality expenses online on individual MPs’ websites and challenged other parties to follow suit. The Conservatives have begun doing the same, and this week in the House they applauded each other and chided the NDP for not following suit.

The NDP has complained that having individual MPs reporting their own expenses is likely to lead to abuses, and instead called for outside supervision, giving the auditor general’s office greater powers to check the books.

At an appearance before the Commons’ Procedure and House Affairs committee last month, Auditor General Michael Ferguson called on MPs to amend legislation to allow him to conduct “financial, compliance, and performance audits” at will, and not be required to be invited to audit parliamentary spending. He also called for an outside body to supervise MP spending.

Audrey O’Brien, the clerk of the House of Commons, who is also the secretary to the board of internal economy, recommended against any radical changes, and pointed to recent steps made to expand transparency.

The committee, which is dominated by Conservatives, voted against making the changes recommended by Ferguson. In a dissenting report, NDP MPs said that the party wants the doors opened to the auditor general, the access-to-information act amended to cover parliamentary spending and the creation of an independent oversight body.

“The Canadian public is looking for more transparency and the report that was tabled today, the Conservatives and Liberals simply are not responding to that need of transparency that Canadians are asking for,” he said.

The Liberals issued their own dissenting report, calling for the board to work with the auditor general to establish regular audits, although he would still require an invitation. They don’t call for access-to-information law to cover Parliament.

The spokesman for the board of internal economy, Conservative MP John Duncan, said Thursday that the board is making progress toward greater transparency and will continue to do so.

“What happens every time people report more and more, the focus gets narrower and narrower,” he said. “I think all of us are interested in getting to a place where there’s no actual question marks left for people. We’re not saying it’s good enough forever but we have moved a long ways.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/parliament-takes-two-small-steps-toward-greater-openness/feed0ottawastphnmaherAuditor General Michael Ferguson: Angriest man in Canadahttp://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-michael-ferguson-angriest-man-in-canada
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-michael-ferguson-angriest-man-in-canada#commentsMon, 25 Nov 2013 20:21:23 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=355948]]>Michael Ferguson was named Auditor General of Canada on Nov. 28, 2011. As of Thursday, he has been on the job for two full years — and he’s hated every damn minute of it.

For proof, look no further than, oh let’s see, all available photos of him. Every single shot features him glowering at the camera, either in annoyance or outright hostility. This is a man with a fire of pure rage burning within his soul. (The lone exception is a tiny thumbnail on the auditor general’s website, but it’s probably Photoshopped.)

During his tenure, Ferguson has repeatedly issued reports finding fault with government programs and departments, most recently on Tuesday when he raised concerns about rail and food safety, among other things.

He’s probably good at his job, who knows, but the most memorable thing about Ferguson is just how angry he looks at all times, apparently relying on a strategy of terror to ensure the government is run effectively and efficiently.

To celebrate Ferguson’s second anniversary as auditor general, we’ve compiled as many photos as we could find of him below. May he one day find peace.

–Some people who pose a threat to Canadians’ security have managed to enter the country illegally because of lax border entry controls. Auditor General Michael Ferguson said he was “very concerned that our audit found too many examples of controls not working.”

–Canada’s safety system for food recalls needs to get better: the auditor general identified “significant gaps” in some parts of it. For instance, follow-up reviews in meat plants were not always done quickly, and emergency response plans sometimes confused the government staff who make key safety decisions.

–Transport Canada’s oversight of rail safety remains plagued with numerous problems including inadequate training and tools for inspectors, sloppy paperwork and poor supervision from management. In one example, the auditor general noted the department had “completed only 26 per cent of its planned audits of federal railways over a three-year period.”

— The navy is at risk of shrinking in both size and capabilities unless the federal government is prepared to inject more money into its multi-billion dollar national shipbuilding plan. “Canada may not get the military ships it needs if budgets are not subject to change,” the auditor general’s report says. It also says that while transforming the shipyards in Halifax and Vancouver into strong, competitive manufacturing centres is a key objective of the shipbuilding plan, the government hasn’t established a way to measure success.

–The federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development isn’t doing enough to support emergency management for First Nations on reserves; it is trapped in a cycle of “reacting to emergencies” rather than trying to prevent them.

–Several federal departments have not ensured adequate control over their own financial reporting. Departments are supposed to have reliable financial information on which to base their own policy decisions, but five of the seven departments audited had not made much progress on tightening their internal controls.

–The federal government’s online services are often not user-friendly for Canadians. “As Canadians rely more on the Internet in their day-to-day lives, they expect the government to provide them with online information and services that address their needs,” Ferguson said.

–Assistance for farmers after disasters is not always well managed, with some, particularly after less costly disasters, waiting more than a year for financial help from the AgriRecovery program.

–The Canada Revenue Agency is doing a good job using the information it has obtained about offshore bank accounts Liechtenstein to discourage Canadians from hiding taxable income there. But “the agency has to be ready to deal with the increased workload in this area,” the auditor general warned. “ If taxpayers think that they can avoid declaring revenue by earning it offshore, then compliance may decline and erode Canada’s revenue base.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/highlights-from-the-fall-report-of-canadas-auditor-general/feed0Michael FergusonchristinaspencrAuditor General Michael Ferguson Canada contemplating buying fleet of armed drones, top general sayshttp://o.canada.com/news/canada-contemplating-buying-fleet-of-armed-drones-top-general-says
http://o.canada.com/news/canada-contemplating-buying-fleet-of-armed-drones-top-general-says#commentsTue, 26 Nov 2013 23:04:07 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=356890]]>WASHINGTON — As Canada moves to modernize its military, it plans to enter the new world of unmanned aircraft but still has not decided whether its fleet of drones should be weaponized, Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, says.

In a speech Tuesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he indicated military leaders see no moral difference in the source of firepower, whether it comes from a rifle or a drone.

“If a kinetic round is propelled towards a confirmed enemy for strategic purposes by a rifle, by an artillery piece, by an aircraft manned or by an aircraft unmanned, any of those that end up with a desired effect is a supportable point of view,” he told a small audience of academics and military officials.

He said the purchase of a fleet of drones is part of the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy, which promised $490 billion over the next 20 years for new equipment.

“It’s yet to be determined whether ours will carry lethal capabilities on board or will just simply be for electronic, optical and IR (infrared) surveillance,” he said.

Canada leased drones for surveillance purposes in Afghanistan and currently is using them on board ships in the Arabian Sea “to great effect,” he said. “So we are in the game along with many NATO allies and delighted by the capabilities it gives us to use the high ground in recognizance and surveillance.”

He said drones could be deployed in the Arctic when seasonal weather is too inhospitable for humans. He added that Arctic radar has limited capacity to see beyond the shores of the archipelago. Drones could plug that hole.

“It really is a terribly inhospitable place with a very difficult set of challenges whenever you want to operate anything up there,” he said. “I think likely you will find a mixture of manned aircraft and unmanned vehicles that will provide us that capability (in the Arctic).”

He stated that Canada favours a strong NATO, North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and the Pacific Rim alliance and stressed that the member nations will continue to expect leadership from the U.S.

“Like most other nations, we will be seeking good, strong, cogent leadership from Americans internationally,” he said. “It’s unfair, certainly, how we all seek the American point of view but what a wonderful thing it says about the people of this nation, the leaders of this nation, that so often that desire from coalition partners is met time and time again.”

He said the close relationship between Canadian and U.S. military is unparalleled in world alliances. Canadian and U.S. military continue to operate under each other’s command at NORAD and in international operations, most recently in Afghanistan. “There is a real spirit of partnership and collaboration that permeates our defence relationship,” he said.

He noted that in NORAD Canada and the U.S. surrendered sovereignty by allowing each other’s military aircraft to cross each country’s borders at will.

“We will continue to seek from the United States certainly at home to be a great partner as the U.S. armed forces have been over I’d say a 100 years in the security of the continent,” he said.

Fielding questions after his speech, Lawson addressed concerns voiced Monday by Auditor General Michael Ferguson about military procurement. Ferguson claimed the government has not budgeted sufficient funds to replace aging destroyers and frigates, putting the Navy at risk of shrinking in size and capabilities.

Lawson said the Canada First Defence Strategy includes replacement of fighter aircraft, replacement of vehicle fleets for the army and a series of ships including Arctic offshore patrol ships, supply ships, support ships and a new combat surface ship.

He said the numbers of these vehicles are in the strategy and “I have every hope they will remain the same.”

He indicated that budgeted figures are for both the purchase of vehicles but also for their long-term operation and maintenance.

He cautioned that these latter figures could be easily adjusted. “The nice thing about that long price is we hold a lever on that so in fact we can throttle back or throttle forward as required to meet strategic and operations needs,” he said.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/canada-contemplating-buying-fleet-of-armed-drones-top-general-says/feed1Tom LawsonwilliammarsdenAuditor General: Navy budget for new ships ‘insufficient’http://o.canada.com/news/1127-ag-ships
http://o.canada.com/news/1127-ag-ships#commentsTue, 26 Nov 2013 15:08:55 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=355987]]>OTTAWA — The dancing shoes were out in force Tuesday as federal ministers, departmental officials and industry skirted questions over whether billions more dollars will be needed to make sure the government’s national shipbuilding plan doesn’t sink.

The issue emerged after Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a report earlier in the day that said the $26 billion the government has set aside to replace the navy’s aging destroyers and frigates is “insufficient.”

The report also notes trade-offs have already been made to keep the Navy’s new resupply ships and Arctic patrol vessels within their own respective $2.3-billion and $3.1-billion budgets, and that future trade-offs are likely unless the feds are prepared to ante up.

As first reported by Postmedia News last week, the auditor general found the problem is that the budget for each shipbuilding project was based on “rough estimates,” most of them arrived at years ago and never revised to reflect current circumstances.

That includes accounting for rising costs for raw materials, labour and military components for ships, as well as the government’s decision to roll the projects together into one major shipbuilding strategy.

“The initial budget for each class of military ship was set years before construction will begin,” the auditor general’s report reads. “As such, the estimates were very imprecise and should be regarded as, at most, placeholders.”

Public Works Minister Diane Finley, who is charged with overseeing the shipbuilding plan, refused to be pinned down on whether the government has set a hard cap on how much it is willing to pay for the new ships, or if there is flexibility.

The government has committed that it will provide the navy the equipment it requires, she said, “so we’re working with the Department of National Defence in identifying what those needs are, what equipment is appropriate, and doing that in a way that respects taxpayer dollars.”

In their own response to the auditor general’s report, National Defence and Public Works said “high-fidelity cost estimates” will be available as design work continues, and that additional money “will be requested, as appropriate.”

Officials confirmed they are prepared to go back to government for more money if the Navy faces a situation where it won’t be able to do its job.

But they maintained there remained plenty of wiggle room as planners juggle numbers.

“Every shipbuilding project involves hundreds if not thousands of compromises,” one official said, on condition of anonymity per government rules.

Even then, the auditor general report raised concerns about the government’s defence strategy, notably what it saw as a lack of clarity on what the government expects the Navy to be able to do.

“While the (defence strategy) did outline the expected number of Navy ships and the core missions for the Canadian Forces,” the report reads, “it did not define the specific naval capabilities required to fulfil the government’s level of ambition.”

This appears to confirm critics’ suggestions that the defence strategy, which promised $490 billion of investments in the military over 20 years, is little more than a shopping list.

The auditor general praised the way the government went about selecting Halifax and Vancouver as the main shipyards for the national shipbuilding strategy, describing the process as “efficient” and “independent from political influence.”

But while the auditor general’s report said the plan “shows promise,” it added that “as with anything new, there are risks involved, and these will need to be closely monitored on an ongoing basis.”

The report notes there is a keen interest in all players — industry, the navy and government — in seeing the shipbuilding plan succeed.

The two companies responsible for the majority of the shipbuilding work, Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and Seaspan Marine in Vancouver, praised the national shipbuilding plan but did not address the issue of budgets.

“We’ve established a strong working relationship with the federal government that we are confident will be maintained throughout the program,” Irving president Kevin McCoy said in a press release. “We will continue to work closely with Canada to design and build the most cost-effective, capable ships for the Royal Canadian Navy.”

“We have a long and established track record of working with the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard in building ships on-time and on-budget,” Seaspan president Brian Carter said in his own press release. “Seaspan is committed to returning B.C.’s shipbuilding industry to its once-thriving roots. We will deliver world-class ships to Canada.”

But retired vice-admiral Ron Buck, president of the Navy League of Canada, said the auditor general’s report confirms what his own organization has been warning about.

“In the absence of increased funding, there is risk that the number and capability of ships promised to be delivered will have to be decreased to remain within approved budgets,” Buck said in a statement.

“The impact of such an outcome will be that that the promised delivery of 15,000 well-paying, skilled jobs over 30 years for Canadians, as promised in the recent speech from the throne, will likely be left unfulfilled.”

In addition to budgetary concerns, the auditor general’s report also takes issue with some ways the broader shipbuilding plan has been managed.

For example, it says that while transforming the shipyards in Halifax and Vancouver into strong, competitive manufacturing centres is a key objective of the shipbuilding plan, the government hasn’t established a way to measure success.

It also says that while the two shipyards are expected to upgrade their infrastructure on a specific timeline, there is no penalty if this happens behind schedule even though “this could result in delayed construction and increased costs” to the Navy’s ships.

This would add further pressure to project budgets.

It also notes that taxpayers could be on the hook for as much as $500 million if the shipbuilding plan goes off the rails thanks to an agreement with the two shipyards.

The shipbuilding strategy was launched in June 2010 and its success or failure has wide implications.

It is vital for the Navy and the coast guard, both of which operate fleets of destroyers, icebreakers, frigates and other vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespans and must be replaced.

It is huge for Halifax and Vancouver, which were selected in October 2011 as the main production centres and are expecting to see hundreds of jobs created.

And it is important to the Conservative government following problems with the F-35 stealth fighter, search-and-rescue aircraft and other military procurement projects.

The Projects

Joint Support Ships

Intended Purpose: Main resupply vessels for the Canadian Forces. They will carry fuel, food, ammunition and spare parts to support missions at sea and on land. They will also hold helicopters and have advanced medical and dental facilities.

Budget: $2.6 billion

Number: Two, with an option for a third

Construction Yard: Vancouver

Background: First announced in 2007, with intention to buy three for $2.1 billion and delivery to happen in 2012. Plan scrapped in 2008 after industry said budget was too small. Re-launched in 2010 with revised budget. (Parliamentary Budget Office estimated in March 2013 that true cost will be more than $4 billion.) Current resupply vessels to be retired in 2017, leaving two-year gap before first replacements arrive in 2019.

Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels

Intended Purpose: Patrolling Canada’s Arctic during the summer months, and redeploying further south on the east and west coasts throughout the rest of the year.

Budget: $3.1 billion

Number: Six to eight

Construction Yard: Halifax

Background: First announced in 2007 after Conservatives promised three to four heavy icebreakers during 2006 federal election campaign. Delivery of first vesseloriginally scheduled for 2015, but since delayed to 2018. Government signed$288-million design contract with Irving Shipyards signed in March even though government-commissioned report raised concerns about high cost.

Heavy Icebreaker

Intended Purpose: Main icebreaker and flagship for Canadian Coast Guard. Providing

Budget: $1.3 billion

Number: One

Construction Yard: Vancouver

Background: First announced in 2008. Budget was initially set at $720 million, but revised to $1.3 billion in November 2013. Delivery initially scheduled for 2017, but scheduling conflict with joint support ships has pushed back delivery to at least 2022.

Canadian Surface Combatants

Intended Purpose: Main warships for the Royal Canadian Navy. Several variants are expected to be built.

Budget: $26.2 billion (preliminary)

Number: 15

Construction Yard: Halifax

Status: Very early in design stage. Intended to replace the navy’s destroyers and frigates. Budget never officially revealed until November 2013, though number could change. Delivery scheduled for mid-2020s, even though the navy’s destroyers are scheduled for retirement in 2017. The most expensive and complex part of the national shipbuilding plan.

In his report released Tuesday, Michael Ferguson blasted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for shortcomings in its oversight of the food safety system.

Although he cited instances of where the food recall process is “generally working well,” he also noted disturbing problems.

For instance, in the areas reviewed, auditors often did not find proof the CFIA fulfilled its responsibility to follow up with food manufacturers after a recall to ensure their product was either relabelled or destroyed.

“For most of the recalls we examined, the incomplete documentation prevented us from being able to verify that the CFIA had adequate assurance that foods posing serious safety risks to Canadians did not re-enter the marketplace,” revealed Ferguson.

“We concluded that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) did not adequately manage the food recall system. Although the Agency acted promptly to investigate food safety concerns and verified that recalled products were removed from the marketplace, significant improvements to the food recall system were needed.”

Indeed, Ferguson told a news conference that while the agency performed many of the “front-end” aspects of food recalls well — moving quickly and letting the public know of the recall — there are problems in the later stages of recalls.

Among the problems he cited are internal government emergency procedures triggered by three “large-scale recalls” that occurred in 2012.

Ferguson said officials often don’t properly understand those procedures, “leading to confusion, particularly for those who are normally responsible for leading and managing food safety investigations and recalls.”

He said many of these “weaknesses” stem from “long-standing” problems that had not been fixed.

Ferguson said auditors found “many examples of incomplete documentation of important decisions and key steps in the recall process.”

Health Minister Rona Ambrose, who is responsible for the CFIA, focused Tuesday on how the agency was complimented for its quick work in recalls.

She downplayed Ferguson’s other criticisms as mere “administrative” matters related to the “paperwork” that must be done after a recall.

“My message to consumers is that they can have confidence in the current food system,” she said, adding that the government will implement all of Ferguson’s recommendations by next spring.

Later, in the House of Commons, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair pressed Prime Minister Stephen Harper on what he will do “to address this government’s systemic failure to keep Canadians’ food supply safe.”

But Harper brushed aside the question, saying the governing Tories have brought in tougher penalties and enhanced controls for meat labelling.

Canada’s food safety system is made up of many players, from manufacturers to government inspectors. Since 2004, all food recalls have been voluntary.

But the CFIA manages the recall process on behalf of the federal government and “makes sure that industry takes appropriate action when a voluntary recall is implemented,” said Ferguson.

In recent years, Canada has had some large and high-profile food recalls. In 2008, an outbreak of listeriosis caused the Maple Leaf Foods plant in southern Ontario to close its plant and recall its processed meats.

Last year, the largest meat recall in Canadian history occurred when E. coli was found in beef products from a meat processing plant in Alberta owned by XL Foods.

Ferguson revealed that although meat “establishments” are required to maintain distribution records so that products can quickly be found during a recall, “timely access” to those records was a “challenge” for two recalls in 2012.

For instance, XL Foods was “slow” in providing distribution records.

“We note that such delays are not a recent problem,” wrote Ferguson, adding the CFIA has “encouraged” industry to do better.

“However, given that the Agency continues to experience difficulties in obtaining timely and usable information, stronger measures are needed.”

Last week, Ambrose said the government plans new penalties for companies that withhold information, such as a positive E. coli test result, or records needed for a food safety investigation.

mkennedy@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/Mark_Kennedy_

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/update-1127-ag-food/feed01127-AG-FOODmarkkennedy1Auditor General: Government doing poor job of managing emergencies on First Nations reserveshttp://o.canada.com/news/1127-ag-reserves
http://o.canada.com/news/1127-ag-reserves#commentsTue, 26 Nov 2013 15:07:37 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=355989]]>OTTAWA — Emergencies on First Nations reserves, ranging from floods to fires, are inadequately managed by the federal government and the consequences for dislocated aboriginal families have been severe, says Canada’s auditor general.

In his report Tuesday, Michael Ferguson found the federal aboriginal affairs department had not taken “sufficient steps” to support First Nations communities struck by emergencies.

Moreover, he found the department’s annual $19-million budget for emergency management wasn’t large enough, and it has had to reallocate funds from other programs to scrape by.

“Natural disasters in Canada are becoming more frequent, intense, and costly,” wrote Ferguson.

“According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, many First Nations communities are considered at risk of emergencies due to their isolation and geographic location. In addition, their ability to effectively deal with emergency events when they occur is affected by their poor socio-economic conditions, low education levels, and few economic opportunities.”

Ferguson’s auditors studied a four-year period during which the federal government spent at least $448 million supporting emergency management activities on reserves. His conclusion was blunt.

“The safety and well-being of First Nations communities on reserve are being adversely affected in significant ways because of their vulnerability to emergencies and to the cumulative effects of these emergency events.”

He found that not all communities had plans for managing emergencies, and most of those that were reviewed were outdated and incomplete.

Ferguson said the three major emergencies on reserves are floods, fire and the failure of critical services such as power and drinking water.

“First Nations would also include social risks, such as suicides, as giving rise to emergencies.”

During the four year period studied – 2009-10 to 2012-13 – there were 447 emergencies. They occurred on 241 communities, representing about 39 per cent of all First Nations reserves.

Auditors visited 10 First Nations communities to understand the recent impact of emergencies. Of the three regions visited, at least 9,500 people were evacuated due to major fire and flooding emergencies in 2011.

By May 15, 2013, about 2,000 of those had not yet returned to their homes.

Ferguson found that “severe and repeated flooding in some communities caused isolation and family disruptions due toevacuation to other sites for long periods of time, including interruption in education.”

Residents of one reserve told auditors that repeated flooding damaged the transportation routes to school, causing students not to attend school “for extended periods.”

As well, flood caused “severe damage to houses” and created mould that caused health risks. Water and sewage systems were also damaged by floods.

Ferguson said “exposure” to all these hazards – floods, smoke from fires, unsafe drinking water, and evacuation – can cause “physiological and physical stress” on people, particularly “vulnerable” residents such as the sick and elderly and children.

Traditional grounds for ceremonies, burials, and other sacred sites were being eroded and are at risk of being lost due to repeated flooding.

And First Nations peoples’ livelihood is also affected, as evacuations mean a loss of income and business closures.

In the House of Commons, New Democrat MP Jean Crowder criticized the government for always reacting inadequately to emergencies.

“When is the minister going to end this cycle of waiting for disasters to happen and act to fix the problem that caused these emergencies?” she asked.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt replied that last week he announced a new, comprehensive approach to emergency management on reserves. He said the plan will ensure “better coordination with the provinces.”

As well, the government is promising that residents of First Nations communities will receive emergency services “comparable” to those that protect other Canadians.

Under last week’s announcement, Valcourt’s department promised to “commit stable funding for response and recovery activities.”

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/1127-ag-reserves/feed0Womanmarkkennedy1Auditor General: Rail safety system beset by ‘significant weaknesses’http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-rail-safety-system-beset-by-significant-weaknesses
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-rail-safety-system-beset-by-significant-weaknesses#commentsMon, 25 Nov 2013 20:43:27 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=355933]]>OTTAWA — Transport Minister Lisa Raitt put her department’s senior officials on notice Tuesday that the public expects drastic improvements in railway safety oversight and she’s prepared to send back a parliamentary watchdog to make sure they get the job done.

“That came out of the conversation I had with the senior management team this morning and we were talking about what Canadians expect from our rail safety program,” Raitt said at a news conference, responding to the latest report by Parliament’s auditor general, Michael Ferguson. “They do expect that if we put in place some regulations that we all do our best in Transport Canada to ensure that we follow through.”

The audit found that the department was making progress on some issues identified by an independent federal panel set up in 2007 following a series of railway accidents that caused serious injuries, fatalities and significant environmental damage.

But despite the government approving about $71 million in 2009 to address some safety issues, Ferguson’s team found that Transport Canada’s existing inspections of railways were inadequate and that it could take years to finish its own reviews of railways’ safety management systems.

Inadequate training for inspectors, poor oversight from management, and sloppy record-keeping are among a host of “significant weaknesses” in Transport Canada’s oversight of rail safety, identified by Ferguson, along with similar concerns from previous reviews, including a December 2011 audit by the federal environment commissioner.

Raitt said the department has developed a plan to address its weaknesses, but needs all staff involved as a team to be successful. She also said she wouldn’t hesitate to invite the auditor general back to check on progress if necessary.

“My role is to help facilitate that not in a way of accusations at all, but more of a way of this is the reality that the auditor general has presented to us,” Raitt said. “These are his recommendations. We need to move forward and fix this for the Canadian public and I think that’s a fair comment and they accepted that too.”

The latest audit examined some 66 inspections and eight audits at Transport Canada conducted between 2010 and 2012, concluding that the department wasn’t collecting “important and relevant railway safety performance and risk data” to ensure it was focusing on the gravest risks.

“Despite the fact that federal railways were required 12 years ago to implement safety management systems for managing their safety risks and complying with safety requirements, Transport Canada has yet to establish an audit approach that provides a minimum level of assurance that federal railways have done so,” wrote Ferguson in the report.

Canadian railways carry more than half of all goods, including dangerous cargo, that moves across Canada by land, as well as more than four million passengers per year, in an industry that employs about 32,000 people.

But the audit also found many examples of incomplete federal safety oversight of these railways, such as having a description of skills required by inspectors without ensuring that any actually had those skills.

In the files that the auditor general’s office reviewed, it also found many were missing proper documentation and that inspectors weren’t following up on corrective action “in almost all cases.”

Ferguson also found that management wasn’t reviewing and approving the “extent and nature” of the work done by inspectors.

“We found that there was little evidence of review of the results of work performed in audits and inspections to evaluate conformity with the plan, the adequacy of findings, and corrective actions taken or planned,” said Ferguson’s report.

Transport Canada has been under fire over the past summer, following a series of railway accidents including the fatal Lac-Megantic runaway train tragedy, for missing key deadlines to address safety issues from previous audits. But it has agreed with Ferguson’s findings in the audit and said it would start fixing many of those problems in 2014.

Raitt, who was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper following the Lac-Megantic disaster, has also begun to deliver new railway safety measures and has pledged to introduce additional safety rules this fall.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-rail-safety-system-beset-by-significant-weaknesses/feed1Train disastermikejdesouzaLack of border controls compromising Canada’s safety, immigration system: Auditor Generalhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-border-security-cause-for-concern
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-border-security-cause-for-concern#commentsMon, 25 Nov 2013 18:31:40 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=355833]]>OTTAWA — The federal government maintains efforts are underway to address weak border controls the auditor general says have allowed dangerous people to slip into the country illegally, compromising the immigration system and the safety of all Canadians.

A report Tuesday by Michael Ferguson raised concerns about both the Canada Border Services Agency’s ability to follow up on intelligence reports about potential undesirables, and the RCMP’s success in apprehending suspected illegal travelers.

“It’s very important for the safety of Canadians that controls at the border work as they are supposed to,” he said shortly after his report was tabled in Parliament.

“I am very concerned that our audit found too many weaknesses and too many examples of controls not working.”

According to the audit, the Canada Border Services Agency has made “little progress” in terms of its monitoring of so-called “lookouts”: individuals or shipments headed for Canada that intelligence has determined may pose a threat.

The audit looked at 34 suspected cases in February 2013 to determine if border agents caught them and sent them for secondary examination. The review found they missed five, four of whom were found to have entered the country. There’s no record of the fifth entering Canada, which means he or she either never did, or successfully entered using fraudulent documents.

The examination results for another 12 lookouts were never recorded.

“Lookouts are intended to intercept known high-risk individuals who attempt to enter Canada and are connected to activities such as terrorism, organized crime or irregular migration,” said the audit.

“Given the seriousness of the threats that lookouts are designed to address, even one missed lookout is cause for concern.”

The audit also raised concerns about the RCMP’s success in intercepting illegal travelers between ports of entry.

Despite a lack of data, the audit found the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams intercepted about half of known illegal entries. The Marine Enforcement Security Teams, despite a lack of resources, intercepted about 80 per cent.

“Without systematic performance information, it is not possible to determine what rate of interception is acceptable or whether resources are placed where they are most effective to prevent illegal entry,” the report said.

The report also found airlines are allowing some travellers to board without proper documentation and are failing to provide advance passenger information as required.

The number of improperly documented travellers last year was 2,508, according to the audit, and while the airlines were responsible for most of these numbers, they did a better job overall of tackling the issue than they had done previously.

The report, however, found a 36 per cent jump in the number of improperly documented travellers — including those using fake passports — for which the airlines are not responsible.

This “is important because it reflects increasingly sophisticated fraud, which makes it difficult for airline staff to identify false travel documents,” the report indicated.

A review of 306 passengers who arrived in Canada between September and November 2012 also found that ticket, date of travel and bag information were missing for 11 per cent of passengers, while the airlines provided only partial information for 84 per cent of the travellers. Personal information such as name, date of birth, gender, citizenship and passport information was missing for 17 passengers.

The report noted several initiatives to address the situation, including the new Electronic Travel Authorization, or mini-visa, visitors will need to secure before coming to Canada starting in the fall of 2015, and an exit visa system due to be implemented by the end of June 2014.

Efforts are also underway to improve the quality of the advance information through “more systematic monitoring and reporting,” the report noted.

“I have asked and can confirm that both Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP are implementing and looking carefully to address the findings and recommendations,” Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said.

“We have increased front-line border officers by 26 per cent and we have removed over 115,000 illegal immigrants since 2006. . . . So I’m confident that the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP will continue to fulfill their mandate which is to ensure the safety and security of our borders.”

NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison, however, urged the government to quit “posturing.” The report, he said, shows “key information about high risk travelers” isn’t being shared and suggested departmental budget cuts weren’t helping the situation.

According to the audit, the Canada Border Services Agency processed 98.7 million travellers in 2011-12, about one-third of them foreign nationals. That amounts to about 90,000 foreign travellers each day.

Canada denied entry to another 54,000 people at ports of entry, while 4,000 were intercepted overseas. The RCMP intercepted another 1,277 people for entering Canada illegally between ports of entry.

The CBSA and RCMP spend about $728 million a year on border control, the report noted.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-border-security-cause-for-concern/feed0Migrant shiptobicohenAuditor General: Long waits for farmer to receive emergency assistancehttp://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-long-waits-for-farmer-to-receive-emergency-assistance
http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-long-waits-for-farmer-to-receive-emergency-assistance#commentsTue, 26 Nov 2013 15:10:16 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=355973]]>OTTAWA – A national emergency funding program to help agricultural producers recover from natural disasters such as disease, drought or excess moisture is plagued by delays that force many recipients to wait before receiving help from the government, says a new audit tabled Tuesday in Parliament.

The report, completed by Auditor General Michael Ferguson, said the government was taking about 126 days, on average, to assess natural disasters as part of the multimillion-dollar program called AgriRecovery.

But this falls well short of the program’s 45-day target for assessments, established as a goal in order to offer “quick, targeted assistance to producers who experience disasters, so that they can return to business as rapidly as possible.”

Overall, the audit found that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in charge of the program, was only meeting its 45-day target in 16 per cent of cases.

The audit also found that the department was faster at assessing some of the most expensive climate-related disasters related to excessive moisture than it was when assessing less costly events.

For example, a $150-million plan in response to excessive moisture was delivered in 110 days, while a $44,000 event took 228 days, said the audit.

There is currently a risk that the cost of administration for small initiatives is disproportionate to size

“There is currently a risk that the cost of administration for small initiatives is disproportionate to size,” wrote Ferguson in the report.

After approving an initiative, the program has a nine-month target for making payments to producers, and the audit found it was meeting that target in 84 per cent of the cases.

But the audit also identified some inadequate tracking of the timeliness of payments, recommending that the department improve this part of its performance.

The department agreed with the recommendations, explaining to Ferguson’s team that it would begin implementing changes in 2014, but had set a target date of March 2018 for improving its existing plan, through co-ordination with the provinces, to speed up the processing of payments.

mdesouza@postmedia.com

twitter.com/mikedesouza

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/auditor-general-long-waits-for-farmer-to-receive-emergency-assistance/feed01127-AG-AFRImikejdesouzaGovernment’s $38-billion shipbuilding plan doesn’t have enough money, auditor general to reporthttp://o.canada.com/news/governments-38-billion-shipbuilding-plan-doesnt-have-enough-money-auditor-general-to-report
http://o.canada.com/news/governments-38-billion-shipbuilding-plan-doesnt-have-enough-money-auditor-general-to-report#commentsSun, 17 Nov 2013 14:32:13 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=349931]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s auditor general has found that the billions of dollars set aside for the federal government’s shipbuilding plan won’t be enough to get the navy the vessels it was promised, or needs.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s report on the national shipbuilding procurement strategy won’t be released until Nov. 26, but several sources who have seen versions of the report have told Postmedia News that it shows the current plan is untenable.

The report has the potential to put the Conservative government in a significant bind and undermine the government’s boast that the $38-billion shipbuilding plan is an unmitigated success story.

In particular, the government will be warned that it must either increase the amount of money it is willing to spend on the new ships, or scale the projects back — which in some cases would render them pale imitations of what was originally envisaged.

Some will point to the auditor general’s report as further proof of incompetence within the Department of National Defence, especially after the controversy that has swirled around the F-35 stealth fighter project in recent years.

In fact, some military officials have indicated concern that the auditor general’s report could cause a reaction on a par with Ferguson’s April 2012 report on the F-35, which became a political lightning rod for the government and severely damaged the defence department’s reputation.

But the auditor general is expected to finger a flawed procurement process and politics as the main issues this time around.

The report will note the government took what were supposed to be initial estimates for new frigates, destroyers and resupply ships and locked them in as the actual project budgets.

This was before any real design work had started, and before the government rolled the projects all into one industrial plan aimed at turning Canada into a world-class shipbuilder, all of which has rendered those initial estimates obsolete.

The auditor general’s findings will come as no surprise to many analysts and experts who have studied or otherwise been following the shipbuilding plan over the years, and have been warning of just such a problem.

But the government has until this point shown little if any flexibility, and instead told officials to make do with what they’ve been given.

Defence officials already admitted in February that they have reduced how fast the navy’s yet-to-be-built armed Arctic vessels can sail to keep the project within its $3.1-billion budget, and warned about other potential “trade-offs.”

Exactly how the government will respond to the auditor general’s report is unclear, but the shipbuilding strategy’s success or failure has wide implications.

It is vital for the navy and the coast guard, both of which operate fleets of destroyers, icebreakers, frigates and other vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespans and must be replaced.

It is huge for Halifax and Vancouver, which were selected in October 2011 as the main production centres and are expecting to see hundreds of jobs created.

And it is important to the Conservative government’s reputation as both strong fiscal managers and supporters of Canada’s military.

That reputation has taken a knock in recent years following problems with the F-35 stealth fighter, search-and-rescue aircraft and other military procurement projects.

While it will likely face criticism from some corners for doing so, the possibility that the government will invest more money into the shipbuilding strategy can’t be ruled out.

Last week, the coast guard revealed that its new icebreaker will cost $1.3 billion to build — nearly double the $720 million originally estimated when the project was first announced in 2007.

A coast guard spokeswoman said the original figure was based on old estimates and the budget was revised upward following a more comprehensive assessment, and to ensure the icebreaker Diefenbaker was able to perform the tasks required of it when it comes hits the water.

(Ferguson’s report only examines the Royal Canadian Navy projects that fall within the $38-billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy and does not address the coast guard part, though the findings will likely have relevance there as well.)

National Defence also said that while it expects to spend about $26.2 billion on 15 new frigates and destroyers over the next decade, the project “is in the very early days” and the number is a “preliminary acquisition cost estimate, for planning purposes.”

While he hasn’t seen the report, defence analyst David Perry of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute said the issues raised by the auditor general are serious and need to change, not just in shipbuilding but all procurement projects.

“The process we have now forces people to come up with preliminary estimates to get a project moving, which is understandable because you don’t want to cut a blank cheque and say ‘Go buy a navy,’” he said. “But at the same time those things get locked in before you can get any kind of detail and there’s no recourse.”

lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/governments-38-billion-shipbuilding-plan-doesnt-have-enough-money-auditor-general-to-report/feed1Michael FergusonleeberthiaumeSenators saved more than $1M in spending during period when claims were under scrutinyhttp://o.canada.com/uncategorized/senators-claiming-less-in-aftermath-of-scandal-but-say-public-scrutiny-isnt-influencing-their-spending
http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/senators-claiming-less-in-aftermath-of-scandal-but-say-public-scrutiny-isnt-influencing-their-spending#commentsMon, 21 Oct 2013 22:04:39 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=332688]]>OTTAWA – In the six months after the Senate began investigating the expense claims of some of its members, about two-thirds of senators claimed less than they had in the same six-month period before the Senate spending issue came to light.

Cutting back the most was Sen. Mike Duffy, who – along with senators Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin – was recently suspended without pay for “gross negligence” in his spending.

Duffy’s claims for staff salaries, office expenses, travel and accommodations in the National Capital region were $174,262.00 for the six-month period from March to August 2012, before his expenses came under investigation. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the publicity around him earlier this year, he claimed just $59,658.26 during the same six-month period in 2013. The difference of $114,603.74 came from reduced spending in all categories and reimbursement of some living expenses. (He did not charge for living expenses in the national capital region during those six months of 2013).

A Postmedia News analysis of senators’ expense claims shows that 58 of the 88 senators who were members of the Senate in both 2012 and 2013claimed less from March 1 to August 31, 2013 than they had during those same six months in 2012. The Senate sat for five more days in the 2012 period.

Thirty-eight senators trimmed spending by more than $10,000.

In total, senators spent a combined $1.2 million less from March to August 2013 than they had in the same period in 2012. (But note, there also were fewer senators claiming expenses. Between March 2012 to August 2013, 15 senators — not included in the 88 analyzed — either retired or passed away. Eleven senators — again, not included in the 88 analyzed — were appointed.)

“There’s no question that when this thing blew up, senators became far more careful,” says Donald Savoie, a Canada research chair in public administration and governance at University of Moncton in New Brunswick, who said he’s “not at all” surprised that senator spending seems to be dropping.

“They don’t want to live through what Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Brazeau are living through at the moment — they’re living through hell. They’ll want to avoid that at all costs.”

The continuing Senate expense affair came to public attention in late 2012, when the Senate began investigating the housing expense claims of senators Duffy, Brazeau and Mac Harb. The spending of those senators – and the travel expense claims of Wallin – were turned over to external auditing firm Deloitte in early 2013 and eventually sent to the RCMP for investigation. The expense claims of all senators are now under the microscope as part of a wider audit by federal Auditor General Michael Ferguson.

Savoie argues that recent public scrutiny of the red chamber and the ongoing investigation by the auditor general should make senators more careful with their expenses and ultimately drive down spending.

But senators say it isn’t the negative attention that is influencing their spending habits.

“I think that most of us will continue to do our work as we see fit and the expenses will come forward as they will,” said Liberal Sen. Elizabeth Hubley, who nonetheless spent $45,501.26 less this spring and summer than she did last year.

Her savings came from reduced office and travel spending because she didn’t replace a staff member who went on maternity leave this summer and because she started purchasing Air Canada flight passes that let her travel more cheaply between Ottawa and her home province of Prince Edward Island.

Liberal Sen. Terry Mercer, who also cut costs by switching to flight passes, spent $38,217.20 less this spring and summer than he had during the same period last year — predominantly through reducing his travel costs. But he said his spending cutbacks weren’t a conscious decision.

“I haven’t changed my travel, I just changed how I paid for tickets,” he said.

Senate administration said senators have been encouraged to buy bulk flight passes for travel between Ottawa and their hometowns since July 2012. Use of these passes remains optional and only about 30 senators use them. Passes weren’t used earlier because it used to be difficult to account for them administratively.

Liberal Senate Leader James Cowan – another adopter of travel passes – said he wasn’t aware that he spent $51,847.37 less this year than he had in 2012.

“There wasn’t a conscious effort to cut back on it,” he said. “There was no effort to say ‘we’re not going travel anymore, we’re going to cut back.’ We did what needed to be done, not more and not less.”

Cowan said that despite the apparent trend, he doesn’t expect – or even want – the increased public scrutiny of senator expenses to necessarily drive down spending in the upper chamber.

“I hope this won’t become a deterrent to senators doing the job they’re supposed to do,” he said. “It’s certainly not deterring me.”

Top 10 savers

Expenses include costs for office, living expenses, travel both on Senate business and to home province; and hospitality:

— Mike Duffy (Independent, former Conservative, Prince Edward Island): Spent $174,262.00 from March to August 2012; spent $59,658.26 from March to August 2013. A saving of $114,603.74. (Duffy’s expenses were turned over to the auditing firm Deloitte in February 2013.)

— James Cowan (Liberal, Nova Scotia): Spent $180,745.50 from March to August 2012; spent $128,898.13 from March to August 2013. A saving of $51,847.37.

— Elizabeth Hubley (Liberal, Prince Edward Island): Spent $140,033.21 from March to August 2012; spent $94,531.95 from March to August 2013. A saving of $45,501.26.

–Pamela Wallin (Independent, former Conservative, Saskatchewan): Spent $195,666.12 from March to August 2012; spent $153,997.28 from March to August 2013. A saving of $41,668.84. (Wallin’s travel expenses were turned over to the auditing firm Deloitte in January 2013.)

–Terry Mercer (Liberal, Nova Scotia): Spent $187,392.69 from March to August 2012; spent $149,175.49 from March to August 2013. A saving of $38,217.20.

–Pana Merchant (Liberal, Saskatchewan): Spent $155,445.68 from March to August 2012; spent $118.662.68 from March to August 2013. A saving of $36,783.00

— Don Oliver (Conservative, Nova Scotia): Spent $144,941.36 from March to August 2012; spent $109,372.66 from March to August 2013. A saving of $35,568.70.

— Nick Sibbeston (Liberal, Northwest Territories): Spent $184,310.29 from March to August 2012; spent $155,276.43 from March to August 2013. A savings of $29,033.86.

— Norman Doyle (Conservative, Newfoundland): Spent $133,238.25 from March to August 2012; spent $105,582.93 from March to August 2013. A saving of $27,655.32.

— Fabian Manning (Conservative, Newfoundland): Spent: $181,135.79 from March to August 2012; spent $154,046.31 from March to August 2013. A saving of $27,089.48.

Others who saved more than $10,000:

— Elaine McCoy (Conservative, Alberta): Spent: $157.,847.71 from March to August 2012; spent $133,961.72 from March to August 2013. A saving of $23,885.99.

— Claudette Tardiff (Liberal, Alberta): Spent: $137,611.93 from March to August 2012; spent $114,583.85 from March to August 2013. A saving of $23,028.08.

— Jane Cordy (Liberal, Nova Scotia): Spent: $125,675.65 from March to August 2012; spent $102,828.28 from March to August 2013. A saving of $22,847.37.

— Martin Yonah (Conservative, British Columbia): Spent: $147,236.66 from March to August 2012; spent $125,362.12 from March to August 2013. A saving of $21,874.54.

— Don Plett (Conservative, Manitoba): Spent: $140,761.58 from March to August 2012; spent $12o,400.66 from March to August 2013. A saving of $20,360.92.

— Michael MacDonald (Conservative, Nova Scotia): Spent: $104,971.90 from March to August 2012; spent $85,318.51 from March to August 2013. A saving of $19,653.39.

— Dennis Patterson (Conservative, Nunavut): Spent: $143,358.44 from March to August 2012; spent $124,292.29 from March to August 2013. A saving of $19,066.15.

— Hugh Segal (Conservative, Ontario): Spent: $96,150.71 from March to August 2012; spent $77,174.00 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,976.71.

— Vern White (Conservative, Ontario): Spent: $65,621.65 from March to August 2012; spent $46,769.15 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,852.50.

— Romeo Dallaire (Liberal, Quebec): Spent: $113,410.32 from March to August 2012; spent $94,753.65 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,656.67.

— Nancy Ruth(Conservative, Ontario): Spent: $109,814.36 from March to August 2012; spent $91,249,08 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,565.28.

— Art Eggleton (Liberal, Ontario): Spent: $126,204.59 from March to August 2012; spent $107,676.06 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,528.53.

— Janis Johnson (Conservative, Manitoba): Spent: $125,937.24 from March to August 2012; spent $107,590.78 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,346.46.

— Joseph Day (Liberal, New Brunswick): Spent: $133,388.10 from March to August 2012; spent $115,262.48 from March to August 2013. A saving of $18,125.62.

— Mobina Jaffer (Liberal, British Columbia): Spent: $136,958.63 from March to August 2012; spent $121,594.41 from March to August 2013. A saving of $15,364.22.

— Patrick Brazeau (Independent, Quebec): Spent: $92,450.78 from March to August 2012; spent $77,185.41 from March to August 2013. A saving of $15,265.37. (Brazeau’s expenses were turned over to the auditing firm Deloitte in February 2013.)

— Maria Chaput (Liberal, Manitoba): Spent: $145.200.18 from March to August 2012; spent $130,441.36 from March to August 2013. A saving of $14,758.82.

— Carolyn Stewart Olsen (Conservative, New Brunswick): Spent: $103,393.70 from March to August 2012; spent $89,475.70 from March to August 2013. A saving of $13,918.00.

— Larry Campbell (Liberal, British Columbia): Spent: $111,424.59 from March to August 2012; spent $97,879.10 from March to August 2013. A saving of $13,545.49.

— Linda Frum (Conservative, Ontario): Spent: $86,963.87 from March to August 2012; spent $73,497.37 from March to August 2013. A saving of $13,466.50.

— Kelvin Ogilvie (Conservative, Nova Scotia): Spent: $104,813.20 from March to August 2012; spent $91,649,17 from March to August 2013. A savings of $13,164.03.

— Wilfred Moore (Liberal, Nova Scotia): Spent: $125,536.74 from March to August 2012; spent $112,386.99 from March to August 2013. A saving of $13,149.75.

— Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu (Conservative, Quebec): Spent: $90,637.42 from March to August 2012; spent $77,557.43 from March to August 2013. A saving of $13,079.99.

— George Baker (Liberal, Newfoundland): Spent: $134,910.98 from March to August 2012; spent $122,817.96 from March to August 2013. A saving of $12,093.02.

— Percy Downe (Liberal, Prince Edward Island): Spent: $110,922.98 from March to August 2012; spent $199,432.32 from March to August 2013. A saving of $11,490.66.

— George Furey(Liberal, Newfoundland): Spent: $137,314.36 from March to August 2012; spent $126,157.29 from March to August 2013. A saving of $11,157.07.

— Gerald Comeau (Conservative, Nova Scotia): Spent: $129,054.11 from March to August 2012; spent $118,083.27 from March to August 2013. A saving of $10,970.84.

— Pierre Claude Nolin (Conservative, Quebec): Spent: $97,364.15 from March to August 2012; spent $86,430.53 from March to August 2013. A saving of $10,933.62.

]]>http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/senators-claiming-less-in-aftermath-of-scandal-but-say-public-scrutiny-isnt-influencing-their-spending/feed0Senate Liberal leader James CowanandreapostmediaAuditor general expected to name names in Senate spending reviewhttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/auditor-general-expected-to-name-names-in-senate-spending-review
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/auditor-general-expected-to-name-names-in-senate-spending-review#commentsFri, 25 Oct 2013 15:01:21 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=333852]]>OTTAWA — A sweeping probe of Senate spending by Canada’s auditor general will name names when Michael Ferguson eventually outlines his findings, and the prospect leaves some members of the upper chamber jumpy.

The last time the auditor general’s office reviewed spending in the upper chamber, when Sheila Fraser held the job, its final report didn’t even identify who was among the small batch of senators were having their expenses reviewed.

This week, auditor general Michael Ferguson let senators know that won’t be the case this time around, Postmedia New has learned. Ferguson is studying the expenses of every senator and will report whose expenses are in line and whose are not.

Ferguson explained how he would report findings on every member of the upper chamber during a closed-door meeting with senators last Tuesday night, minutes after they had adjourned debate for the day on motions to suspend without pay three senators whose questionable expenses led the upper chamber to call in the auditor general in the first place.

There are some in the chamber who aren’t concerned about what the final report will say, believing their fiscal house is in order, though they concede it’s possible he will uncover mistakes. But it appears that there is concern from others about being scrutinized by Ferguson and his office.

Senators appear to have drawn the line on one request from the auditor, balking at a request from Ferguson’s office for information that may be subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Ferguson has the right to ask for the confidential communications between senators and their lawyers, but he also must protect this information from release. However, the auditor general has never before sought such documentation from senators, and they are not ready to waive this confidentiality now.

Letters have been sent out to senators’ offices asking them to consent to the request.

“We’re not going to give it to him,” said a senator who was at the meeting Tuesday, and who would only speak on condition of anonymity.

Spending in the upper chamber has been the subject of an ongoing scandal that hit a new level of drama last week as the Senate debated whether to suspend, without pay, senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. All three were found to have run afoul of Senate spending rules, although all three claim to have done nothing wrong. A motion to limit that debate was expected to be introduced Monday; it was possible a final vote on their fates could happen midweek, though the timelines are fluid.

All three have spoken in the Senate in their defence and argued that they were not alone in making expense claims that could be considered questionable, or even in violation of Senate spending rules.

During debate, it was even suggested that Conservative senators had repaid numerous questionable expense claims.

“I’ve heard other rumours, not publicly, that other members of (the Conservative) caucus have repaid expenses. I don’t know the truth of that,” said Sen. Elaine McCoy, an independent senator who sits as a Progressive Conservative.

Ferguson’s audit is to begin in earnest this month, with the first of what is expected to be three reports from Ferguson’s auditors arriving before the Senate in December. The remaining two reports will outline the findings of probes of senators’ individual spending going back two years.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/auditor-general-expected-to-name-names-in-senate-spending-review/feed1Auditor General Michael FergusonjordanpresMichel Coulombe appointed to head CSIS as government remakes upper ranks of public servicehttp://o.canada.com/news/michel-coulombe-appointed-to-head-csis-as-government-remakes-upper-ranks-of-public-service
http://o.canada.com/news/michel-coulombe-appointed-to-head-csis-as-government-remakes-upper-ranks-of-public-service#commentsFri, 25 Oct 2013 20:51:55 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=335506]]>OTTAWA — The Harper government shook up the top ranks of Canada’s primary spy agency and its Foreign Affairs Department Friday, the latest in a string of changes to senior leadership throughout the federal civil service.

Long-time spy Michel Coulombe formally takes over as director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, five months after he was tapped to serve as interim director to replace the outgoing Richard Fadden.

Fadden famously made headlines in June 2010 when he said in an interview that foreign countries were actively engaged in industrial and political spying in Canada, and that they held sway over several unnamed Canadian politicians.

He is now the most senior civilian leader at National Defence.

Coulombe, who has been with CSIS since 1986, told a parliamentary committee in March that radicalization, or homegrown terrorism, was the spy agency’s “No. 1 priority.”

“Terrorism is not something that happens only in other countries,” he said during another committee meeting in May. “There are people in groups here and now who seek to commit acts of violence in Canada and who, given the chance, would kill innocent Canadians and destroy civilian infrastructure.”

CSIS is separate from the Communications Security Establishment Agency, the federal government’s super-secret electronic espionage agency, which has been at the centre of controversy over allegations of spying in Brazil and other activities.

Meanwhile, the government appointed former diplomat Daniel Jean to take over as the top bureaucrat at Foreign Affairs.

Jean has spent the better part of the past decade moving up through the ranks at various departments, and most recently served as the top official at Canadian Heritage.

Before that, he served as a Canadian diplomat in Washington, Haiti and Hong Kong.

Foreign Affairs, like all federal departments, is currently working to rein in spending as part of the Harper government’s efforts to slash the deficit.

This has included selling Canadian diplomatic property abroad and cutting back on diplomats’ resources when working overseas.

Professional diplomats also only recently ended a five-month job action that often flared into acrimony and included a ruling of bad-faith bargaining against the Harper government by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

The government also announced that former National Defence deputy minister Robert Fonberg is retiring after 33 years in government.

One of the most powerful and controversial bureaucrats in Ottawa, Fonberg quietly — and not so quietly — influenced everything from the war in Afghanistan to the military’s multibillion-dollar procurement system. He was appointed in 2007.

Regarded as extremely arrogant by some, tough by others, Fonberg famously butted heads with opposition MPs last year after Auditor General Michael Ferguson blasted National Defence’s handling of the $45-billion F-35 stealth fighter jets project.

Many had expected Fonberg to be replaced then, but instead he has spent the past year implementing billions of dollars in Defence Department spending cuts — much of which is being done behind closed doors with little explanation or outside input.

He was appointed to a six-month stint, which has now ended, as special adviser to the clerk of the Privy Council, the federal government’s top bureaucrat.

Former Canadian International Development Agency president Margaret Biggs, who oversaw the dismantling of Canada’s foreign aid agency earlier this year, is also on the move and will take up a fellowship at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/michel-coulombe-appointed-to-head-csis-as-government-remakes-upper-ranks-of-public-service/feed0CSISleeberthiaumeSenate spending probe pushes move to keep more records for senatorshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-spending-probe-pushes-move-to-keep-more-records-for-senators
http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-spending-probe-pushes-move-to-keep-more-records-for-senators#commentsSun, 20 Oct 2013 13:00:55 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=329694]]>OTTAWA — A probe by the auditor general into spending in the Senate has prompted senators and the chamber’s administration to start creating paper trails for decisions that previously weren’t documented.

The move to document every piece of work by a senator is mainly driven by a fear that Auditor General Michael Ferguson will find something amiss in the Senate’s accounting books, even among those senators who believe they have followed all the rules.

Senators admit that there are those who keep more documentation than others, and some have relied on the Senate’s administration, a non-political bureaucracy, to keep accurate records for years.

Adding layers of paperwork, Senate sources said, is seen as a way to cover any shortcomings in documentation that the auditor general had previously pointed out.

For instance, one senator was asked to sign papers outlining a request to Senate administration for help to find a new employee for the senator’s office. Normally, paperwork would only have been filled out when a new employee was actually hired — although an internal audit suggested that hasn’t always happened.

In another case, a senator requested Senate administration create a record of his request for “special travel,” the category used for trips that are not between Ottawa and the senator’s home.

All sources spoke to Postmedia News under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the auditor general’s audit.

Senators are being asked to provide Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s office with documents currently subject to solicitor-client privilege, one of a number of conditions the auditor general put to senators during closed door meetings earlier this fall. Solicitor-client privilege normally means that what is discussed between a client and his or her lawyer is private.

Under the legislation guiding his office, Ferguson is allowed to ask for those documents and must protect them, but senators have never been subject to the auditor general act and Ferguson wants them to agree to open up everything, Senate sources said.

There is a secondary fear that Ferguson will build on the spending audit done of Sen. Pamela Wallin, and define how senators should do their jobs. One long-time senator told Postmedia News the concern among some in the upper chamber is that Ferguson is being given the power to define how senators work — and whether they should travel at all.

The comprehensive audit of all Senate spending will take about 18 months to complete. Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre told the House of Commons on Friday that the review will look at expenses going back two years to 2011.

The probe has started with Ferguson reviewing the Senate’s spending policies and how well the Senate’s administration oversees how tax dollars are being spent. Ferguson is also looking at the detailed spending for the Senate’s leadership group and the 15 members of the Senate’s internal economy committee, which is tasked with ultimate oversight of Senate spending and its administration.

The goal is to then review the spending of the remaining senators, about 70 in all, in two batches that will each take at least six months to complete.

Ferguson has publicly said the whole process, which started over the summer, could take between 18 months and two years to complete. However, the timeline for the audit will see information come out sooner than 2015.

The first interim report from Ferguson’s office is expected to be a Christmas gift to the Senate in December. That report will outline findings to-date of spending by Senate leadership and the internal economy committee, as well as analysis of the Senate’s oversight system.

The timing for the second and third interim reports aren’t finalized, but they will review the spending behaviours of the remaining members of the upper chamber.

It all comes amid the backdrop of the spending scandal that will be the focus of debate again starting Tuesday in the Senate, as members of the upper chamber decide whether to suspend three of their own — Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy — without pay and without access to any of their expenses.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/senate-spending-probe-pushes-move-to-keep-more-records-for-senators/feed1Auditor General Michael FergusonjordanpresSeven challenges for the Stephen Harper governmenthttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/seven-challenges-for-the-stephen-harper-government
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/seven-challenges-for-the-stephen-harper-government#commentsFri, 11 Oct 2013 16:01:21 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=323578]]>The federal Conservatives will try to lay out a new course as they prepare for a run into the next federal election in 2015. But some controversies won’t go away easily:

Robocalls

Elections Canada continues its hunt for the elusive Pierre Poutine, the name linked to automated phone calls that directed voters to the wrong polling stations in Guelph in the 2011 election. One former Conservative staffer, Michael Sona, has been charged, but Elections Canada is now suggesting that witnesses aren’t co-operating and are holding up the investigation. The robocalls controversy spurred politicians to agree to give Elections Canada more power to investigate campaign infractions — something the agency continues to request — but comprehensive campaign reform legislation was yanked amid concerns from the Conservative caucus.

The Senate

Allegations against three members of the upper chamber — Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy and former senator Mac Harb — are public, written into RCMP court documents. But where will the RCMP go in their probe of Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel spending? Will other allegations, and other names, emerge? The drips of information continue to pull Prime Minister Stephen Harper back into the controversy.

Dean Del Mastro

The Peterborough Tory MP faces four charges for allegedly violating election spending rules during the 2008 election. Del Mastro has denied any wrongdoing. Del Mastro became a household name in 2012 as the government’s point man during the robocall controversy, called upon regularly to rise in the Commons and answer questions from the opposition. If he rises now, he will do so as an independent, after leaving the Conservative caucus. In his place, expect the opposition to demand that Harper answer questions about his former parliamentary secretary, part of a wider push by the NDP and Liberals to question ethics and judgment in the Harper government.

Backbenchers

The abortion debate never ends, though the prime minister wants it to. The main culprits for its continual mention in Parliament? The MPs who sit a few rows behind Stephen Harper. Harper has already lost one backbencher — Brent Rathgeber — over the direction of the party and the seemingly heavy-handed rule of the PMO. If other backbenchers feel ignored or that they have nothing to lose, their rumbling could grow louder.

Auditor General

Reports from such federal watchdogs as the auditor general and parliamentary budget officer are never good news for governments. But Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s upcoming report must be giving Conservatives and bureaucrats alike heartburn. Look at the topics: rail safety and the food recall system. The opposition will draw links with the Lac-Megantic disaster if Ferguson’s office finds the government didn’t do enough on rail safety. At the same time, the Conservatives’ upcoming “consumer-first” agenda could be challenged if it’s found to have fallen asleep on food safety. And that’s not even getting into whether its reputation for being sound fiscal stewards will be hurt if the AG finds the government has failed in its promise to crack down on offshore banking.

Military Procurement

Speaking of the auditor general’s report, the Conservative government is still wrestling with what to do about the F-35 stealth fighter project. Ferguson threw a wrench in the works last year when he issued a scathing report that ultimately prompted the government to recalibrate its plans to purchase the warplane. Meanwhile, an even bigger problem looms: Ferguson’s upcoming report is slated to examine the Conservative government’s vaunted national shipbuilding plan. The AG is expected to find that the shipbuilding plan will cost much more than the $35 billion the government has announced. That’s not insignificant, as thousands of jobs, as well as the future of Canada’s navy, are at risk. In other words, prepare for Round Two.

Aboriginals

Nearly one year after Idle No More brought aboriginal issues to the forefront of the federal political agenda, anger and frustration continue to bubble. The 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation that recognized First Nations’ land rights over a large part of Canada; the Conservative government’s refusal to act on violence against aboriginal women; and First Nations’ demands for more say in natural resource development — all offer the potential for flare-ups. Adding fuel to the fire is the sea-change bubbling within the senior leadership of Canada’s First Nations, which threatens to pit different factions against each other over how to bring aboriginal grievances to the federal government.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/seven-challenges-for-the-stephen-harper-government/feed1Dean Del MastroleeberthiaumeConservative senators under scrutiny for spending and ethicshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-senators-under-scrutiny-for-spending-and-ethics
http://o.canada.com/news/national/conservative-senators-under-scrutiny-for-spending-and-ethics#commentsTue, 01 Oct 2013 21:18:53 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=320772]]>OTTAWA — Canada’s Senate continued to be mired in scandal on Tuesday, as a Conservative senator who was once Prime Minister Stephen Harper‘s spokeswoman was forced to defend her expense claims — and could face a review of her own spending after overseeing audits of four misspending senators.

But Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen was not alone.

Other Conservative senators were put on the defensive as the names of senators with close ties to the Prime Minister’s Office, including Leo Housakos and Claude Carignan, faced questions about spending and ethics in the upper chamber. A former Liberal senator, Rod Zimmer is also under scrutiny for his spending, even though he was previously cleared by a committee of his colleagues.

And the RCMP continue to probe the spending of senators Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau, and former senator Mac Harb.

For the opposition NDP, the allegations against Conservative senators are fodder to continue linking the scandal in the Senate to Harper, who has worked for months to distance himself from spending violations in the Senate.

“There are five senators now that are being investigated for their ethics, their behavior — all appointed by Stephen Harper,” NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair told reporters Tuesday. “It’s time Stephen Harper begins to accept responsibility for the people he appointed.”

One of those senators who faced questions Tuesday was Stewart Olsen, a former Harper spokeswoman, who helped oversee spending audits of Wallin, Duffy, Harb and Brazeau. A report in the Huffington Post questioned thousands of dollars in housing and living expenses Stewart Olsen claimed while she still owned a condominium in Ottawa.

In May, when the Senate scandal heated up over revelations about a secret payment from Harper’s then chief of staff to Duffy, Stewart Olsen told Postmedia News she built a retirement home with her husband in Cape Spear, N.B., and moved there before her appointment to the Senate in late 2009.

Land registry records show Stewart Olsen and her husband purchased their condo in Ottawa in 1999, and sold it on May 2, 2011.

Stewart Olsen didn’t respond to an interview request from Postmedia News on Tuesday. In a statement to the media, the senator said her expenses were clean.

“I have reviewed these claims with the Senate finance administration, and they have found nothing improper,” Stewart Olsen said in a statement. “I welcome the auditor general’s review of all senators’ expenses.”

Sen. Gerald Comeau, chairman of the internal economy committee, said the committee would check with Senate finance officials about Stewart Olsen’s spending.

“It’s only due diligence that we would check with the administration,” Comeau said. “It is just due process.”

Mulcair didn’t call for the RCMP to review her claims, but suggested Stewart Olsen be removed from the internal economy committee based on the allegations against her.

“How could she continue sitting there and look at these issues in the same Senate when she had been doing the same thing? It’s unbelievable.”

Auditor general Michael Ferguson is being asked to review the spending of every member of the upper chamber. The chairman of the internal economy committee said Tuesday that Ferguson is likely to be asked to audit files flagged by Senate finance officials because the Senate lacks the ability to conduct a forensic audit of spending.

Comeau said adding that kind of expertise would be too costly, but so too is hiring outside auditors to do the same work.

“We don’t have the forensic capabilities within the Senate to get to the bottom of these things,” Comeau said in an interview.

“Given that the auditor general is there and he does have the people with the skills and the training, I think it’s appropriate for us to call on the auditor general to say, look, while you’re doing this could you look at this as well.”

The internal economy committee has already looked at housing claims of Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu after questions were raised last month about whether he qualified for the allowance because of the amount of time he spent in the capital region after the break-up of his marriage. Comeau told Postmedia News last month he was going to ask for more information about Boisvenu’s expenses, and whether he spent enough time in Sherbrooke, Que., to qualify for the housing allowance.

Comeau said Tuesday Boisvenu’s travel patterns to the area supported his claims.

Comeau’s committee is revisiting the expense claims of Zimmer, the former Manitoba Liberal who resigned from the Senate over the summer citing health reasons. Comeau would neither confirm nor deny the review was underway.

Zimmer had previously been cleared of any questions about his housing, after the committee asked him additional questions during its review earlier this year of all housing claims made by senators.

Zimmer claimed almost $52,500 in living expenses between September 2010 and May 2013, according to quarterly expense reports from the Senate. Land registry records show he purchased a $908,000 home in November 2010.